| CITATION | COURT NAME (COUNTRY) |
| DATE | 02 May 1990 |
| COURT NAME(COUNTRY) | Supreme Court of India |
| DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. |
| PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER | VISHAL JEET |
| JUDGES | PANDIAN, S.R. (J)REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) |
INTRODUCTION
It unearthed not only issues related to human trafficking and compulsory prostitution of children but also revealed such exploitative trafficking support systems as the Devadasi and Jogin systems. The public interest litigation also brought about the lapses of the criminal justice system, giving law enforcement agencies the need for rehabilitation and, most importantly, prevention from these social evils. Prostitution was looked upon as a multifaceted, socio-economic problem needing not punishment but deserving preventive and rehabilitative measures. Emphasis was laid on the provision for their medical care, education, and vocational training to victims while calling for systematic efforts from both central and state governments in addressing these issues effectively. The judgement laid greater emphasis on the constitutional duty under Articles 23 and 39 in safeguarding children and women against exploitation while recommending a humanistic approach to uphold the dignity and rights of such persons.
FACTS
- The filing of this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) originated from a thicket of issues relating to minors involved in prostitution, direct forceful prostitution, and exploitative traditions.
- The discussions raised issues of inaction by the police, necessitating rehabilitation of victims and measures to eradicate child prostitution.
- In its observations, the Court pronounced that prostitution was a socio-economic problem requiring rehabilitation rather than punishment.
- Strict action should be taken against pimps and traffickers.
- Stress should be laid on the rehabilitation of sex-trafficked persons to give assistance, health care, educational opportunities, and vocational training.
- There are various legal mechanisms put in place, having a long list of sociopolitical laws and acts – the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956; certain sections of the IPC; the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986.
- At the level of states, the states were directed to constitute advisory committees in order to deal with these matters effectively.
MAIN ISSUES
- Is there proper implementation of existing laws to eradicate child trafficking and forced prostitution?
- Whether directions can be issued to investigate police officials and others enabling forced prostitution, including the Devadasi and Jogin traditions?
- Are adequate measures in place for the rescue, protection, and rehabilitation of victims of forced prostitution and their children?
JUDGEMENT
The issues raised before the Supreme Court of India in Vishal Jeet v. Union of India were most serious in nature with reference to trafficking for child prostitution and for forced prostitution and various forms of exploitative traditions such as those of the Devadasis and Jogins. The Court emphatically said that prostitution is a socio-economic problem and not a crime that deserves punishment; what it needs is preventive measures, not punitive action. The application for a CBI inquiry into the matter throughout India was dismissed on the grounds of impracticality, but the court ordered both the central government and state governments to take immediate and effective steps for the eradication of the practices. Rehabilitation of victims through medical assistance, education, and vocational training was made an important aspect. Plans were to be developed for the establishment of advisory committees for the proper implementation of anti-trafficking schemes, for monitoring rehabilitation programmes like Ujjawala Homes, and for conducting studies to understand the patterns of trafficking for putting in place better preventive measures. The Court emphasised the protection of children and women from exploitation and, therefore, proceeded to call for systematic measures to eliminate these social evils.
REASONING
The Supreme Court in the judgement of Vishal Jeet v. Union of India (1990) averred that prostitution is not a social issue but an extremely intricate socio-economic problem that needs prophylactic measures rather than punishment. The Constitution under Articles 23 and 39 makes it a duty of the Central and State Governments to take steps for the welfare of children and women. The Court observed that children and other vulnerable people are grievously exploited in forced prostitution and also in cultural practices such as the Devadasi and Jogin systems.
It rejected as practically impossible the demand for a pan-India inquiry by the CBI but stressed the need for systematic intervention at the state level. The governments were directed to establish mechanisms for the effective implementation of anti-trafficking laws, rehabilitation of victims through protective homes, medical aid, education, and vocational training, and conduct studies on the prevention of trafficking. This judgement strongly held that such issues have to be dealt with with a humanistic approach in order to maintain the dignity and rights of these victims vis-à-vis the well-being of the society at large.
CONCLUSION
In the landmark case of Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, the Supreme Court made a good beginning to decrease some of the socio-economic factors fuelling child trafficking, forced prostitution, and exploitative traditions. The Court, by refusing to subject these victims to punitive measures and establishing a model of rehabilitation, has been able to usher in a more humanitarian approach to address these issues. The Court directed the governmental authorities to actively enforce anti-trafficking laws, set up protective homes, give victim survivors healthcare and education, provide vocational training, and devise programs to deter trafficking based on systematic research regarding trafficking. The judgement emphasised that all this has to be done in concerted action against such practices while ensuring that the rights and dignity of the most vulnerable human beings are protected, thereby creating a link to the well-being of society as a whole.
REFERENCES
Written by Parth Srivastava, Kamla Nehru Vidhi Sansthan, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.