Ensuring Professionalism in Prosecuting Human Trafficking Crimes

Human trafficking is among the most serious organized crimes in the world – and in India, it remains a deeply entrenched challenge. Despite a robust legal framework spanning multiple statutes, conviction rates in trafficking cases have historically stayed low. A significant reason behind this is not just inadequate investigation or slow courts; it is the way prosecutors handle these cases. UNODC’s Training Manual for Prosecutors makes it clear that professionalism in prosecution is not optional – it is the backbone of any successful effort to bring traffickers to justice. This post breaks down exactly what that professionalism looks like in practice, why it matters, and what prosecutors must do at every stage of a trafficking case.

Why prosecution quality matters so much in trafficking cases 🔗

Trafficking syndicates are not small-time operations. The UNODC Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Prosecutors highlights that these networks often have access to highly skilled legal counsel, and they actively work to tamper with victims and evidence at every stage of the criminal process. This means the prosecution cannot afford to be reactive or careless. At the same time, the U.S. State Department’s 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report on India notes that prosecutors are frequently undertrained on trafficking laws, which directly contributes to drawn-out trials and low conviction outcomes. Professional prosecution is therefore the single most critical variable the state can control in these cases.

The prosecutor’s role: Far beyond the courtroom 🔗

Many people assume the prosecutor’s job begins and ends at trial. In trafficking cases, that assumption is dangerously incomplete. The UNODC SOP document details how prosecutors play a proactive role well before trial begins – advising police on legal procedures during investigation, handling bail and remand hearings, ensuring proper recording of victim statements, and filing applications to protect victim custody. After the trial concludes, their responsibilities extend further still: pursuing closure of exploitation premises, seeking attachment and seizure of criminal assets, and contesting appeals.

Advising police during investigation 🔗

The quality of the investigation directly determines the strength of the prosecution. Prosecutors must stay involved from early on – verifying that FIRs are filed correctly, ensuring the right legal sections are invoked, and flagging any procedural gaps before they become fatal to the case. According to the 2024 TIP Report, officials in many Indian states did not consistently apply all relevant legal provisions when registering trafficking crimes, which significantly weakened prosecution efforts down the line.

Handling bail oppositions effectively 🔗

Opposing bail in trafficking cases is one of the most consequential pre-trial duties a prosecutor performs. The UNODC SOP outlines that key considerations when opposing bail include the likelihood of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence or witnesses, the severity of the charges, and crucially, the power imbalance between the accused and the victim. If a trafficker is released on bail without strict conditions, the risk of victim intimidation increases sharply – and so does the chance of the case collapsing entirely.

Ensuring victims are never wrongfully prosecuted 🔗

One of the most disturbing realities of India’s anti-trafficking landscape is that victims themselves have historically been arrested and charged as offenders. The UNODC SOP references action research by the National Human Rights Commission which found that between 85 and 90 percent of those arrested under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act were women – and the majority of them were trafficking victims, not perpetrators. This amounts to a grave violation of their rights and constitutes what is widely recognized as re-victimization.

The UNODC’s principle of non-criminalization of victims is clear on this point: trafficking victims must not be punished for offences they were compelled to commit as a direct result of being trafficked. In the Indian context, if a prosecutor discovers that a rescued victim has been charged as an accused, they must immediately apply to the court to discharge the victim. The law is on the prosecution’s side here – the ITPA was designed to target exploiters, not the people they exploit.

Investigating all persons and areas involved 🔗

Trafficking is never a single-point crime. It spans recruitment, transportation, transit, and destination – often across state or even national borders. The UNODC SOP emphasizes that under Section 5(3) of the ITPA, offences committed during the trafficking process are triable at the source, transit, or destination location. This means prosecutors must ensure that the investigation does not stop at the point of rescue.

Looking beyond the scene of the crime 🔗

A persistent problem in trafficking prosecutions is that only the people physically present at the scene – such as a brothel keeper or a cook – get arrested, while the actual orchestrators escape accountability. The SOP makes it clear that theories of criminal conspiracy, common intention, and abetment can be applied here. Criminal conspiracy does not require direct evidence; it can be established through circumstantial evidence based on what happened before, during, and after the crime. Prosecutors must push for charges against everyone in the network – financiers, transporters, recruiters, and customers alike.

Age verification and proper classification of victims 🔗

The age of a victim is a turning point in how a trafficking case is handled legally. If a victim is determined to be a minor or child, the offences carry significantly higher penalties, and all proceedings shift to the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice Act. Prosecutors must ensure age verification is done promptly and accurately, and where age reports are ambiguous or fall into a bracket, they should apply to the court for the lower age to be considered – because getting this wrong can seriously weaken the entire case.

Conducting an expedient and victim-centric trial 🔗

Speed and sensitivity are not luxuries in trafficking trials – they are necessities. The 2024 TIP Report notes that Indian courts tend to operate slowly, and a massive case backlog means trafficking victims are often waiting years for trials to conclude. During this time, they remain vulnerable to retribution from traffickers, and their willingness to testify erodes. Prosecutors have a direct role in preventing this.

Preventing secondary victimization in court 🔗

The courtroom itself can become a source of trauma for trafficking victims. Aggressive cross-examination that forces victims to relive exploitation in detail, hostile environments, and the mere presence of the accused can cause deep psychological harm. The UNODC SOP references landmark Supreme Court guidance from the Sakshi case, which directed that in cases involving child victims, cross-examination questions related to the incident should be submitted in writing to the presiding officer, screens should be made available to shield victims from seeing the accused, and sufficient breaks must be allowed during testimony. Prosecutors should actively invoke these protections in every relevant case.

Using video conferencing to reduce victim burden 🔗

When victims have already been rehabilitated and repatriated to distant locations, compelling them to travel back to the trial court adds unnecessary stress and often leads them to simply refuse to testify. Video conferencing, now recognized by the Supreme Court as a valid method of recording evidence, allows victims to give testimony from a location where they feel safe. Prosecutors should routinely explore this option, particularly in cases where victims have already been moved to other states.

Framing charges correctly and comprehensively 🔗

Weak charges lead to acquittals. The process of framing charges in a trafficking case requires prosecutors to cross-reference the facts of the case against multiple statutes – the ITPA, relevant IPC sections (such as those dealing with kidnapping, rape, and selling of minors), the Juvenile Justice Act, and potentially the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. The SOP notes that charges can be amended or added at any point before judgment under Section 216 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This flexibility must be used – if new evidence emerges during trial that supports additional charges, prosecutors should not hesitate to petition the court.

Protecting victim identity throughout the process 🔗

Trafficking victims – especially minors – deserve privacy protection at every stage. Under Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act, details of any child involved in proceedings cannot be published in any form. Similarly, Section 228-A of the IPC prohibits disclosure of the identity of victims in rape and sexual exploitation cases. Reports on India’s anti-trafficking efforts highlight that many victims decline to participate in prosecutions out of fear – and public exposure of their identity only compounds that fear. Prosecutors must proactively ensure that courts, media, and all parties adhere to these identity protection norms.

Post-trial: Rehabilitation and asset recovery 🔗

A professional prosecution does not end at the moment of conviction. Prosecutors have responsibilities that extend into the post-trial phase. These include pursuing the closure of brothels or premises used for exploitation, seeking attachment and forfeiture of property linked to trafficking proceeds, and supporting applications for victim rehabilitation and compensation. The 2024 TIP Report points out that courts in India rarely awarded restitution from traffickers in criminal cases, and many victims waited years to receive even government-mandated compensation. Prosecutors actively pushing for restitution orders can make a meaningful difference in whether survivors are able to rebuild their lives.

Training and institutional support: The missing piece 🔗

UNODC’s Training Manual was developed precisely because capacity gaps among prosecutors were identified as a systemic barrier. The manual was built on direct feedback from prosecutors who had undergone training and from those who had handled trafficking trials. The 2024 TIP Report confirms that while the Ministry of Home Affairs funds annual trafficking-related trainings for prosecutors, judges, and police, the overall training ecosystem remains inconsistent across states. Specialized knowledge – on how trafficking networks operate, which legal provisions to invoke, how to handle cross-border dimensions, and how to protect victims during proceedings – is not something prosecutors can pick up on the job alone. Institutional investment in regular, structured training remains essential.

What do you think? Given that the conviction rate in Indian trafficking cases has historically been very low, do you believe that better prosecutor training alone can close this gap – or does the system need deeper structural reforms to make professional prosecution possible at scale? And considering how often trafficking victims in India have themselves been treated as offenders, how can the criminal justice system better embed the principle of non-criminalization into everyday practice?

References

1. https://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/India_Training_material/Training_Manual_-_Prosecutors.pdf
2. https://uppolice.gov.in/Site-Content/uploaded-content/pdf/SOP_Prosecution_-_July_2009_-_Final_Draft.pdf
3. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-trafficking-in-persons-report/india/
4. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/tip-and-som/module-8/key-issues/principle-of-non-criminalization-of-victims.html
5. https://www.fairplanet.org/story/in-india-justice-remains-elusive-for-trafficking-victims/