Facts: Victim No. 3, along with other victims, was rescued during a police raid at a hotel. The Magistrate ordered Victim No. 3's detention in a protective home for one year under Section 17(4) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (PITA), citing a lack of relatives and potential for re-engagement in immoral activities. This order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Procedural Posture: Victim No. 3 challenged the Magistrate's order and the Sessions Judge's affirmation by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, arguing that her fundamental rights were violated.
Issue: Can a major victim of trafficking be detained in a protective home against her will, based solely on the apprehension that she might relapse into commercial sex work, especially when she has no family to support her? Does Section 17(4) of PITA allow for such detention without considering the victim's fundamental rights?
Holding: No, a major victim cannot be detained solely on the apprehension of relapsing into commercial sex work. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the detention orders.
Reasoning: The Court emphasized that PITA, 1956 aims to rescue and rehabilitate victims, not punish them. Detaining a major victim based on a mere apprehension, without considering her constitutional rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement under Article 19 of the Constitution, is unjustifiable. The Court noted that the Magistrate failed to properly consider the victim's rights and the absence of any material indicating she posed a threat to society. The court also highlighted the importance of soliciting assistance from a panel of respectable persons as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the PITA, which the Magistrate failed to do. The court relied on previous judgments, including Asiya Anwar Shaikh V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Kajal Mukesh Singh V/s. State of Maharashtra, which affirmed the fundamental rights of major victims to move freely and choose their vocation.