‘Can only be seen as protective custody’: Telangana HC dismisses plea to release trafficking survivors

The petitioner claimed to be a close friend of the two women, both aged 19, as they were rescued as a group in a 2018 raid at Yadagirigutta. The petitioner was released in August 2025 based on a high court judgment in a similar habeas corpus petition filed by her aunt.

Anjali argued that since both women had attained majority, they should be released and allowed to return to their families and “be free to script their futures”. She argued that the state does not have any right to keep them in the state home against their wishes.

However, the State strongly opposed the release, stating that the women are material witnesses in pending trafficking and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) cases, and releasing them prematurely would expose them to “threat and intimidation from traffickers”. The counsel also shared concern about the women being re-victimised in the trafficking racket in Yadagirigutta after their release.

In the judgment, the bench observed that the writ petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the writ petition and stated that the petitioner’s own capacity to act as a responsible friend was uncertain, especially since the proposed place of residence was an area “notorious for sex trade”. The judgment added, the fact that “the detenues as well as the petitioner were rescued from trafficking in 2018 and again intend to reside in an area which is notorious for sex trade, adds to the Court’s anxiety”.

Addressing the women’s argument of the right to choose their future, the court said: “The petitioner’s argument that the detenues should be free to script their futures is not compelling enough to dispel the risk of re-victimisation.”

The bench concluded that the detention was lawful, falling under the comprehensive legislative scheme of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The judges noted that a writ of habeas corpus is founded on a strong moral fibre and unimpeachable credentials of the petitioner, which in this case, failed on all counts.

The petition was dismissed, with the court underscoring that the ruling was necessary to “underscore the real risk of the detenues being exposed to re-victimization on their release”. The State was also mandated to ensure that the care provided to the survivors is sympathetic and inclusive.