Bombay High Court Directs Immediate Repatriation of Trafficked Bangladeshi National
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has ordered the forthwith repatriation of a 27-year-old Bangladeshi national who was a victim of human trafficking and has been stranded in India since her rescue in 2024.
Victim's Ordeal and Rescue
The woman, whose repatriation "has been inordinately delayed for over six months" according to the court, was lured to India with the false promise of employment at a salon. Facing dire financial circumstances, she traveled without proper documents, leaving behind a six-year-old child in Bangladesh.
She was rescued on June 8, 2024, during a police raid on a restaurant in Dahisar conducted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA). The petition for her repatriation was filed by the NGO Rescue Foundation, represented by advocate Ashley Cusher.
Judicial Intervention and Criticism of Delays
A division bench comprising Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata expressed frustration at the procedural delays that prevented her return. The court had previously directed the trial court to record her evidence on October 8, 2025, but as of March 11 this year, this had still not been completed.
The judges deemed it appropriate to exercise their writ jurisdiction rather than sending the parties back to the special court, noting the excessive delay in the legal process.
Legal Framework and Procedural Questions
During proceedings, the Centre's advocate presented the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for counter cross-border trafficking between India and Bangladesh, along with a Memorandum of Understanding focused on preventing trafficking of women and children and ensuring victim rescue, repatriation, and reintegration.
The bench questioned why an adult victim would require a magistrate's repatriation order when both the Indian government had granted permission for her return and the Bangladeshi government had issued a travel permit. They noted that Section 17 of the ITPA, which deals with intermediate custody, does not require any specific order for victim repatriation.
Court's Directive and Future Protocol
The judges found the Centre's suggestion that the court hearing the matter should grant a "no objection" for repatriation to be "pragmatic and consistent" with the SOP's intent. They specified that in this case, the special court judge who recorded the victim's statement would be the appropriate authority for such approval, while in other cases, it would be the court that granted custody of the victim to shelters or other designated persons under ITPA.
Given the prolonged delay, the High Court directed her immediate repatriation, subject to undertakings ensuring her availability via video-conference for the ongoing case.
Broader Implications
This ruling highlights critical issues in the implementation of anti-trafficking protocols and the need for efficient judicial processes to protect victims' rights. The court's intervention sets a precedent for expediting repatriation in similar cases, emphasizing the humanitarian aspect over bureaucratic hurdles.
