Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “The Court will indicate that in such matters of human trafficking, including child trafficking, time is of the greatest importance and, thus, whatever guidelines are

[31/03, 07:58] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/i/status/2038805598083637526
[31/03, 07:58] sekarreporter1: Home  / Court Updates  / Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls For Pan-India SOP To Combat Human Trafficking; Constitutes Expert Core Committee For Practical Strategy The Court emphasized immediate police action as “time is of greatest importance” in missing person cases. ByAastha Kaushik|30 Mar 2026 5:20 PM The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition regarding a minor child missing since 2011, observed that time is the most critical factor in investigations of human and child trafficking and directed a uniform Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be implemented across all States and Union Territories. Emphasizing that the Court seeks a practical strategy rather than academic formulas, the Bench constituted a high-level Core Committee—including the Additional Solicitor General and former police officials—to deliberate on state-level recommendations and finalize a framework that ensures investigations are seriously pursued on the ground from the moment a complaint is received. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan observed, “The Court will indicate that in such matters of human trafficking, including child trafficking, time is of the greatest importance and, thus, whatever guidelines are required/suggestions made, should be after factoring the time frame of the action which the police is required to take immediately upon receipt of a complaint relating to missing of a person. The Delhi Government instructions may also be looked into by the Union, rest of the States and the Union Territories…Let the Home Secretary, Union of India; the Home Secretaries and the Directors General of Police of the States and the Union Territories, hold a discussion with all the stakeholders who are specifically dealing with issues of human trafficking within their jurisdiction, and come up with specific proposals/suggestions.” Also Read – Presumption Of Existence Of Vacancy If Engagement Of Workman Is For Substantially Long Term: Supreme Court Advocate on Record Aarthi Rajan appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Additional Solicitor General S.D Sanjay, Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj and Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the Respondents. Brief Facts of the Case A minor child, aged less than two years, went missing one evening. The petitioner immediately lodged a complaint, and a “child missing” case was registered. Although the local police failed to take effective steps to trace the child, they eventually filed a closure report before the jurisdictional Metropolitan Magistrate. Aggrieved by the closure of the case, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition. The High Court subsequently directed a specialized crime branch to take over the investigation and ensure the family was informed of the progress. After several years of investigation, this specialized unit filed a final report before the Magistrate, classifying the case as “undetectable”. Also Read – Courts Must Not Attempt To Judicially Determine Nature Of Religious Practices: Muslim Personal Law Board Tells Supreme Court In Sabarimala Review Case Before the Lower Court and the High Court The petitioner challenged this “undetectable” finding by filing a protest petition, seeking a more comprehensive and detailed investigation. Upon hearing this petition, the Magistrate directed the constitution of a Special Investigating Team (SIT) dedicated to finding the missing child. The SIT later submitted a status report regarding their efforts. After reviewing the SIT’s report and hearing all parties, the Magistrate dismissed the petition, concluding that the child remained “undetectable” despite the efforts made. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the High Court, arguing that the police had failed to follow mandatory government guidelines for missing children. However, the High Court observed that the police had taken sufficient efforts and noted that certain guidelines cited were not applicable as the child went missing before they were issued. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower court’s order. Also Read – ADM Acting As Rent Authority Cannot Set Aside Findings Based On Its Own Report; Exercise Of Such Dual Role Impermissible: Supreme Court Before the Supreme Court The Petitioner then filed a Special Leave to Appeal, challenging the order passed by the High Court. Previously, the Apex Court asked the Standing Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to appear in the case. The State subsequently filed a status report indicating that the investigation is progressing. Counsel for the State informed the Court that authorities are using artificial intelligence to locate the missing child and are sharing information with other states. The Court noted these steps as being in the “right direction” but emphasized that the pace of the investigation must not be diluted. During the hearing, Senior Advocate HS Phoolka submitted that he had the occasion to assist the Delhi High Court in a PIL regarding human trafficking and pursuant to that certain guidelines were issued by the State of Delhi of the manner in which the police is supposed to act in a fixed time-bound manner. Also Read – Constitutional Courts Cannot Pre-Empt Executive Decisions In Tender Matters Through Ex-Ante Judicial Review: Supreme Court The Court said, “Accordingly, personally affirmed affidavit be filed, latest by 16.04.2026, by all the Directors General of Police of the aforesaid States who have not entered appearance to explain the circumstances under which they have chosen not to appear despite notice being issued and duly served to them, failing which they shall be personally present before this Court. We make it clear that if no such affidavit is filed by them till 16.04.2026, no excuse for their non-appearance shall be acceptable. However, under genuine difficulty and for bona fide reasons, not only application seeking exemption has to be filed, but order on the said application shall also be required to be obtained on the said application, prior to the next date fixed in the case. We make it clear that failure to do so may lead to this Court issuing notice for contempt against them.” The Court also directed that the Union and the States file a detailed affidavit regarding to what standard procedure, according to them, that should be adopted in such matters. “We indicate that the Court is not interested in any hypothetical or academic formula, but rather a practical strategy/approach which can be implemented/put into place right away, at the local Police Station level under whose jurisdiction the incident occurs”, the Court said. The Court asked the States and the Union Territories to hold such an exercise within one month and forward their recommendations to ASG, who shall then get an exercise conducted under the aegis of the Union Home Ministry, and the same shall be deliberated to come up with a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be implemented pan-India. The Court reiterated that the exercise initially shall be limited to the very basic issue of investigation, not only being initiated but seriously pursued immediately upon a report received relating to any missing person, more so in the background that till the person is finally located, the case shall be kept alive not just on paper, but actually on the ground also. The Court directed, “We further direct that other specialised agencies working in the field of human trafficking, shall be also asked to join in the exercise and their views and inputs taken, so as to come up with a workable and effective formula. For the purposes of finally coming up with a common SOP, for the present, we constitute a Committee of Mr. P.M. Nair, Former IPS Officer and DG, NDRF, Government of India and Mr. Veerendra Kumar Mishra, IPS, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and Mr. S. D. Sanjay, learned ASG as the core group for the exercise, as indicated and visualized in this order. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned ASG shall be the Convenor of the Committee and Coordinator for the exercise. The Court shall decide with regard to nominating more persons to the Committee on the next date.” The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to provide all such required support to the Committee, as may be communicated through the ASG, including proper and sufficient office space, secretarial staff etc. It was directed that it shall also take care of the expenses incurred by the Committee Members for the purposes of the exercise which they are to undertake in terms of this order, including attending meetings/conferences convened for this purpose. The Court also asked the Ministry to arrange for or reimburse, as per their desire, all the Committee Members with regard to their travelling, boarding and lodging expenses. Accordingly, the matter is now listed for further hearing on April 21, 2026. Cause Title: G Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11263/2025] Appearances: Petitioner: Advocate on Record Aarthi Rajan, Advocate Arvind Srevatsa, Advocate S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Advocate Abhilasha Shrawat, Advocate Kartik Malhotra, Advocate Amar Kumar. Respondents: Senior Advocate H. S. Phoolka, Additional Solicitor General S.D Sanjay, Additional Advocate General Rajat Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, Advocate on Record Sabarish Subramanian, Advocate on Record Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocate on Record Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate on Record Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate on Record Disha Singh, Advocate on Record Ankit Roy, Advocate on Record Manish Kumar, Advocate on Record Subodh S. Patil, Advocate on Record Neelam Singh, Advocate on Record Pallavi Langar, Advocate on Record Naveen Sharma, Advocate on Record Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate on Record Harshad V. Hameed, Advocate on Record Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate on Record K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate on Record Karan Sharma, Advocate on Record Nidhi Jaswal, Advocate on Record Devina Sehgal, Advocate on Record Ruchira Goel, Advocate on Record Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advocate on Record Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate on Record Kunal Mimani, Advocate on Record Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate on Record Aravindh S., Advocate on Record Saksham Maheshwari and others. Click here to read/download the Order Justice Ahsanuddin AmaahJustice R MahadevanChild Trafficking Aastha Kaushik Next Story Presumption Of Existence Of Vacancy If Engagement Of Workman Is For Substantially Long Term: Supreme Court The Court restored the reinstatement of Switchmen whose services were orally terminated by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur, after 13 years of service. ByAastha Kaushik|28 Mar 2026 4:40 PM The Supreme Court held that when workmen serve for a substantial period—over 12 years in this instance—it creates a legal presumption that the work is of a perennial nature and a regular vacancy exists. The Court further pulled up the employer for withholding employment records, affirming that the Labour Court was right to draw an “adverse inference” against the department for failing to produce summoned documents. The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed, “In a case where engagement is for a substantial length of time, a presumption would arise that the work for which the workmen is engaged is of a perennial nature and there exists a vacant post. In the instant case, there is no dispute that workmen were initially engaged in the year 1993 and their services were dispensed with in the year 2006. It is difficult to accept that for that long period of time they were only working as substitutes for regular workers. In such circumstances, when they had led evidence regarding their continuous service and a direction was issued to the employer to produce the relevant records and, despite such direction, records were not produced, if the Labour Court had raised an adverse inference, the same could not have been faulted.” AOR Ashish Kumar Upadhyay appeared for the Appellant, whereas AOR Lokesh Kumar Choudhary appeared for the Respondents. Appeals were filed impugning the common judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby three connected writ petitions filed by Nagar Nigam, Kanpur (Respondent herein) against three separate awards of Labour Court were allowed and the awards were set aside. Facts of the Case The Appellants worked as Switchmen for Nagar Nigam, Kanpur. They entered service in 1993 and continued to work until July 11, 2006, when the Respondent orally terminated their services. The workmen claimed that they served continuously for over 12 years and completed more than 240 days of work in the year preceding their dismissal. Consequently, they raised an industrial dispute, arguing that their termination was illegal as the respondent failed to follow the mandatory retrenchment procedure. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Kanpur. The Respondent contested the claim, stating that the appellants were merely “substitute” workers who worked only 10 days a month and never completed 240 days of service in any calendar year. However, the Labour Court rejected this defence. It noted that the respondent failed to produce the relevant employment records despite a specific order to do so. Therefore, the court drew an “adverse inference” against the employer and held that the termination violated Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court ordered the reinstatement of the workmen with back wages. Aggrieved by the awards, Nagar Nigam filed writ petitions before the High Court. The High Court set aside the Labour Court’s orders and ruled in favor of the employer. It held that the primary “burden of proof” to establish 240 days of continuous service rested solely on the workmen. Since the High Court felt the workmen failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence, such as payment slips, it concluded that the burden could not be shifted to the employer to prove the negative. Submissions of the Parties The Appellants challenged the High Court’s judgment, arguing that 13 years of service raised a legal presumption of regular and perennial work. They pointed out that they led oral and documentary evidence, while the employer deliberately suppressed records. Furthermore, they argued that other similarly situated workmen in the same department received relief which was upheld by the Supreme Court in earlier instances. They contended that denying them the same benefit resulted in a “travesty of justice.” In response, the Respondent supported the High Court’s view. They argued that there was no cogent evidence to prove the completion of 240 days of service. Additionally, the respondent challenged the grant of back wages, asserting that the Labour Court failed to record a specific finding on whether the workmen remained unemployed during the period of litigation. Observations of the Court The Court examined the materials and noted that the Nagar Nigam did not specifically deny that the workmen served from 1993 to 2006. The Respondent’s claim that the appellants were only “substitute” workers for 10 days a month lacked evidence. Although a witness for the Nagar Nigam claimed his testimony was based on official records, the employer failed to produce those records despite the Labour Court’s summons. Consequently, the Court held that the Labour Court acted correctly by drawing an adverse inference against the employer for withholding vital documents. “We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment and order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. However, merely because the retrenchment procedure was not followed may not automatically entitle the workmen to be reinstated with full back wages… In this case, though, we are of the view that the workmen were entitled to reinstatement as they had served for over a decade, however, whether they were entitled to full back-wages/ arrears or lesser amount, requires adjudication based on an assessment whether they were gainfully employed elsewhere in the interregnum.”, it said. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the Labour Court’s decision regarding the illegality of the termination. It upheld the order for reinstatement of the workmen, given their long tenure of service. However, on the issue of back wages, the Court noted that a specific assessment was needed to check if the workmen were “gainfully employed” elsewhere during the litigation period. Therefore, the Court remanded the matter back to the High Court solely to decide the quantum of back wages, while the order for reinstatement remained final. Cause Title: Mohammad Sagir and Ors. v. Nagar Nigam Kanpur [SLP (C) No(s). 14760-14762/2024] Appearances: Appellants: Advocate on Record Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate Anurag Dubey, Advocate Anu Sawhney, Advocate Satpal Wadhwa, Advocate Maitri Goal. Respondents: Advocate on Record Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Ajay Singh, Advocate Mukteswari Shukla, Advocate Himanshu Shukla, Advocate Ankur Gulyani Panda, Advocate Mayank Sharma. Click here to read/download the Judgment Justice Manoj MisraJustice Manmohan Aastha Kaushik SIMILAR POSTS Supreme Court Presumption Of Existence Of Vacancy If Engagement Of Workman Is For Substantially Long Term: Supreme… Supreme Court Courts Must Not Attempt To Judicially Determine Nature Of Religious Practices: Muslim Personal Law… Supreme Court ADM Acting As Rent Authority Cannot Set Aside Findings Based On Its Own Report; Exercise Of Such… Supreme Court Constitutional Courts Cannot Pre-Empt Executive Decisions In Tender Matters Through Ex-Ante Judicial… About Verdictum About Us Our Team Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact Us Write for Us Social Media Find Lawyer Advertise with Us Newsletter © Copyright 2025Powered by Hocalwire

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/mandates-pan-india-sop-combat-human-trafficking-constitutes-expert-core-committee-practical-strategy-1610992
[31/03, 07:58] Meta AI: The Supreme Court has directed the creation of a pan-India Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to combat human trafficking, emphasizing the importance of immediate police action in missing person cases. A Core Committee, including former police officials, has been constituted to finalize the SOP within a month. ¹

Key points:
– *Time-Sensitive Action*: Police must act immediately upon receiving a complaint about a missing person.
– *Core Committee*: Includes former IPS officers and the Additional Solicitor General to draft the SOP.
– *SOP Requirements*: Must include guidelines for police action, investigation protocols, and coordination between states.
– *Artificial Intelligence*: States are using AI to locate missing children, as seen in the Tamil Nadu case.

The court stressed that the SOP should be practical and implementable at the local police station level. The matter is listed for further hearing on April 21, 2026. ²

Would you like to know more about the implications of this ruling or the process for implementing the SOP?