The Legal Framework for Interviewing Trafficking Victims: Ensuring Safety and Dignity

When law enforcement rescues a trafficking victim, the hardest part has only just begun. The moment of rescue is critical – and so is everything that follows, especially the first interview. In India, the legal framework governing how rescued persons are interviewed is not left to chance. Specific provisions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 mandate that these interviews be conducted with care, sensitivity, and strict procedural safeguards. Understanding these rules is essential for anyone studying the intersection of law enforcement and victim protection in India.

Why interviewing rescued persons demands special attention 🔗

Trafficking is not a single crime – it is a chain of abuses. Victims face emotional trauma, physical injuries, and severe psychological damage, some of which can last a lifetime. By the time a person is rescued, they have often endured prolonged exploitation, isolation, and fear. Walking into a police station and being questioned can feel deeply threatening, no matter how well-intentioned the officer may be.

Survivors of trafficking often experience complex trauma – the result of exposure to multiple traumatic events that are invasive and interpersonal in nature, with wide-ranging and long-term effects. This matters enormously for how interviews must be structured. Without a trauma-informed approach, criminal justice professionals and service providers may miss important cues and unintentionally re-traumatize the individual. The law in India recognises this reality and builds procedural protections directly into the statute.

The legal mandate under Section 15(6A) of ITPA 🔗

The cornerstone provision governing the interview of rescued persons in trafficking cases is Section 15(6A) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. This section was inserted by the 1986 amendment and sets out two non-negotiable requirements for how rescued women or girls must be interrogated.

First, the special police officer or the trafficking police officer making a search shall be accompanied by at least two women police officers. This is not optional guidance – it is a statutory obligation tied directly to every search operation conducted under the Act.

Second, and crucially for the interview itself, where any woman or girl removed is required to be interrogated, it shall be done by a woman police officer, and if no woman police officer is available, the interrogation shall be done only in the presence of a lady member of a recognised welfare institution or organisation. The law does not permit a gap. If a female officer cannot conduct the interview, a lady member of a recognised NGO or welfare body must be present.

What counts as a “recognised welfare institution”? 🔗

The Act does not leave this term undefined. For the purpose of this sub-section and Section 17A, “recognised welfare institution or organisation” means such institution or organisation as may be recognised in this behalf by the State Government. This means NGOs and welfare bodies must carry formal State Government recognition before they can legally participate in this capacity. It is a deliberate quality control mechanism – ensuring that only vetted, accountable organisations are involved at such a sensitive stage.

The purpose behind these procedural safeguards 🔗

These provisions are not bureaucratic formalities. They exist to address a deeply gendered reality of trafficking and its aftermath. Female victims of commercial sexual exploitation have frequently endured sexual violence at the hands of men. Placing them in a room with an unfamiliar male police officer for questioning – often shortly after rescue – risks deepening their sense of powerlessness and violation.

The UNODC Standard Operating Procedures for investigating trafficking crimes in India reinforce this logic clearly. The best interest of the victim is paramount in cases of trafficking. The interview should be non-traumatic and non-threatening, and the dignity of the victim must be respected at all times.

The SOPs go further, specifying that the interview should be in the victim’s own language, and if a translator is required, the statement should be recorded in the language the victim speaks. Language barriers, when unaddressed, can create confusion and further distress – compounding the trauma rather than reducing it.

Avoiding re-victimisation during the interview 🔗

One of the most important principles embedded in Indian anti-trafficking procedure is the avoidance of re-victimisation. Investigators must not force or compel the victim to disclose painful details of the offences during the first interview. This is a deliberate departure from traditional interrogation methods, which prioritise extracting maximum information as quickly as possible. In trafficking cases, that approach is counterproductive.

Memory loss, lack of focus, emotional reactivity, and multiple versions of a story can all be signs of trauma exhibited during interviews. Interviewers should be familiar with these signs and not assume the victim is evading the truth. A victim who struggles to narrate events in sequence is not being dishonest – they are exhibiting a recognised trauma response. The law and accompanying guidelines in India acknowledge this.

The role of NGOs in the interview process 🔗

NGOs occupy a legally recognised and practically important position in the post-rescue interview process under Indian law. Their involvement is not limited to the fallback scenario where no woman police officer is available. Under the ITPA, NGOs and civil-based organisations are envisaged as having a large role in law enforcement and justice delivery. The State Government may notify a non-official advisory body of leading social workers, including women social workers, with powers to advise the Special Police Officer on questions of general importance.

In practice, police are advised to secure the help of NGOs to act as witnesses, mediators, or support persons during rescue and post-rescue proceedings. The Ministry of Home Affairs Advisory on Combating Human Trafficking underscores that law enforcement agencies need to adopt a victim-centric approach in investigations, and police should work closely with NGOs involved in service delivery for spotting and rescuing victims.

Integrated Anti-Human Trafficking Units and NGO coordination 🔗

To formalise police-NGO cooperation in trafficking cases, the Government of India, in collaboration with UNODC, established a framework for Integrated Anti-Human Trafficking Units (IAHTUs). A nodal NGO identified by the state police supports each IAHTU, and in consultation with the anti-trafficking officer, this nodal NGO can associate other local NGOs as and when required. Importantly, keeping in view the nature of the work, especially in relation to assistance provided to victims of trafficking, it is advisable to provide for one dedicated interview or counselling room within each unit. This recognises that the physical environment of an interview matters as much as the procedural rules governing it.

What happens after the interview: immediate next steps 🔗

The legal obligations do not end once the interview is recorded. After removing a person from premises during a search, the special police officer shall forthwith produce that person before the appropriate magistrate. The rescued person must also receive medical attention promptly. Any person produced before a magistrate under this provision shall be examined by a registered medical practitioner for the purposes of determining their age, detecting any injuries resulting from sexual abuse, or identifying the presence of any sexually transmitted diseases.

Following this, the magistrate conducts an inquiry into the person’s circumstances, including their age, character, antecedents, and the suitability of their parents or guardian for taking charge of them, as well as the nature of any influence their home conditions might have. Before handing over any rescued person to parents or a guardian, the magistrate may cause an investigation to be made by a recognised welfare institution or organisation to satisfy himself about the capacity or genuineness of those claiming custody. This is Section 17A of the ITPA – another provision that directly empowers recognised NGOs.

Gaps in implementation and the way forward 🔗

Despite these robust legal provisions, enforcement on the ground remains inconsistent. States did not consistently use all relevant legal provisions in human trafficking cases, law enforcement and legal service providers possessed a limited understanding of the human trafficking legal framework, and police and judicial officials had inadequate training – all of which hindered trafficking prosecutions and convictions.

Many victims choose not to report their stories to law enforcement agencies due to fears of social stigma and reprisal from traffickers. The way an initial interview is conducted plays a direct role in whether a victim will cooperate with the investigation going forward. A badly handled first interaction can shut down the entire process.

The Trafficking of Persons Bill, 2018 attempted to create a more unified legal framework. The Bill intended to serve as a comprehensive law to deal with all cases of trafficking, providing for investigation authorities at the district, state and national level, and setting up Anti-Trafficking Units to rescue victims and investigate cases. However, the Bill was not passed into law, and India continues to rely on the ITPA and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code for trafficking cases.

This makes strict adherence to existing interview protocols under Section 15(6A) all the more critical. Training police officers, strengthening the network of recognised welfare institutions, and ensuring that trauma-informed practices are standard rather than exceptional – these are the immediate priorities for improving how India interviews rescued trafficking victims.

What do you think? Given that the law already mandates the presence of a woman police officer or a recognised welfare institution member during the interview of female trafficking victims, why do implementation gaps persist so widely across Indian states? And how can the role of NGOs in post-rescue interviews be made more consistent and effective without compromising the speed needed in criminal investigations?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15378/1/the_immoral_traffic_(prevention)_act,_1956.pdf
2. https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/India_Training_material/SOP_on_Investigation_of_Crimes_of_Trafficking_for_Commercial.pdf
3. https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-12/combatinghumantrafficking_29092022%5B1%5D.pdf
4. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-trafficking-of-persons-prevention-protection-and-rehabilitation-bill-2018