Child trafficking continues to be one of the gravest human rights challenges confronting India. Despite constitutional guarantees, statutory safeguards and repeated judicial interventions, the scale of the problem remains alarming. A recent Supreme Court judgment in K. P. Kiran Kumar versus State has once again drawn attention to the systemic failures in prevention, investigation and conviction, holding that trafficking strikes at the very core of a child’s fundamental right to life and dignity under the Constitution.
The scale of the problem in numbers
Official data reveals a troubling gap between rescue and justice. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, over 3,000 children below the age of 18 were rescued in 2022 alone. Between April 2024 and March 2025, more than 53,000 children were rescued from situations involving child labour, trafficking and kidnapping. Yet, conviction rates for trafficking-related offences between 2018 and 2022 stood at a mere 4.8%, reflecting weak deterrence and chronic enforcement deficits.
How law defines child trafficking
Internationally, child trafficking is defined broadly to include the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation. Indian criminal law mirrors this expansive understanding. Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 criminalises trafficking for exploitation through force, coercion, deception, abuse of power or inducement, including payments made to secure consent. Crucially, “exploitation” is not narrowly construed: it includes physical and sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, forced labour and even organ removal. Consent is irrelevant where exploitation is established.
Constitutional protection of children
The Constitution places children at the centre of India’s social justice framework. Articles 23 and 24 prohibit trafficking, forced labour and employment of children in hazardous industries. The Directive Principles further impose a duty on the State to ensure that children grow in conditions of freedom, dignity and healthy development, and are protected from exploitation, neglect and abandonment. These provisions together establish that child protection is not merely a policy choice but a constitutional obligation.
Statutory framework against trafficking
India’s legal architecture against child trafficking is spread across multiple statutes. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita specifically criminalises the buying and selling of minors. Sexual exploitation is addressed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, while care, protection and rehabilitation of trafficked children fall under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Amendments to criminal law in 2013 expanded the definition of trafficking to include slavery-like practices, forced labour and organ trade, irrespective of consent.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 plays a critical role by criminalising a wide range of sexual offences against children, prescribing stringent punishments that extend to life imprisonment and, in extreme cases, the death penalty. Its gender-neutral design and the establishment of fast-track courts exclusively for such cases were intended to ensure swift justice, though outcomes have fallen short of expectations.
The judiciary’s evolving approach
Over the years, the Supreme Court has consistently recognised trafficking and child exploitation as deep-rooted socio-economic problems requiring more than punitive responses. Earlier judgments emphasised preventive strategies, rehabilitation of victims and accountability of the State machinery. Directions were issued to curb child labour in hazardous industries and to address systemic exploitation through coordinated institutional responses. The recent decision in “K. P. Kiran Kumar” builds on this jurisprudence by explicitly linking trafficking to violations of the right to life, thereby elevating the issue from criminality to constitutional injury.
Why convictions remain low
The persistently poor conviction rate points to structural weaknesses. Investigations are often delayed or poorly conducted, victim testimony is fragile due to fear and social stigma, and coordination between police, child welfare committees and prosecution agencies remains inadequate. Trafficking networks exploit poverty, migration, disasters and family breakdown, making victims both invisible and vulnerable. The rise of social media and online platforms has added new recruitment channels, often disguised as job offers or modelling opportunities, complicating detection.
What lies ahead for policy and enforcement
Judicial guidelines increasingly stress the need to recognise the socio-economic vulnerabilities of trafficked children, particularly those from marginalised communities. However, sustainable change requires more than rescue operations. Strengthening institutions responsible for child protection, improving investigation quality, and ensuring victim-centric rehabilitation are essential. Equally important is raising conviction rates to create real deterrence.
Given that policing and law and order fall within the State List, effective action demands strong Union–State coordination. Without cooperative federalism in enforcement and child welfare, constitutional promises will remain largely symbolic.
What to note for Prelims
- Child trafficking is criminalised under Section 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution prohibit trafficking, forced labour and child labour in hazardous industries.
- Key laws include the Juvenile Justice Act, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and POCSO Act.
What to note for Mains
- Link between child trafficking and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).
- Reasons for low conviction rates despite high rescue numbers.
- Role of judiciary in shaping a rights-based, victim-centric anti-trafficking framework.
- Need for Union–State coordination and institutional strengthening in child protection.
