The Ministry of Women &
Child Development (MWCD), Government of India (GoI) for the past almost two
years has been misled into believing that India needs a single Omnibus law that
shall address all the different types of human trafficking. Why is it not a
good idea?
1) It is like pinning all the existing specialised laws against the
destination crimes of human trafficking under a new cover page name. This will
only add to confusion, breakdown and wasteful duplication.
Ironically, all the earlier
efforts of the MWCD-GoI (they are on record in public domain) retained almost
intact the existing specific laws, each of which addresses one type of human
trafficking, more accurately one type of destination crime of human
trafficking. Only one version of the proposed omnibus law declared that the
existing law against sex trafficking, The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITP
Act), 1956 shall stand repealed. As soon as the gravity and blunder in doing so
was realized the idea of repealing the ITP Act was dropped in subsequent communications
and versions.
This helps establish the fact
that the new Omnibus law as envisaged by the MWCD-GoI shall not replace the
existing specific laws in the domain of trafficking such as the Immoral Traffic
(Prevention) Act 1956, The Child Labour (Prohibition
& Regulation) Act 2016, The Bonded Labour Systems (Abolition) Act 1976, The
Prohibition Of Child Marriages Act 2006, The Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1965,
The Transplantation of Human Organs Act 2010,
the various Devadasi related laws, Important provisions of The Indian
Penal Code 1860, The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, etc.
When it comes to children
(persons below 18 years of age) the central procedural law, The Juvenile
Justice Act, and the Code of criminal Procedures (CrPC) shall prevail. It is
important to note here that a substantial section of the victims of sex
trafficking, labour trafficking, trafficking for beggary in India are children.
For many offences which are
instrumental to human trafficking such as threat, force, assault, causing
injury, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, etc. shall remain intact. The victim
compensation (criminal injuries compensation) which is a part of the Code of
Criminal Procedure Sec 357 shall continue to remain effective through the CrPC.
As against that, the proposal
of a new omnibus law and its advocates have completely failed in presenting any
significant justification in its favour.
2) The proposal of a new omnibus (single) law against human trafficking is
not based on any rational exercise or felt need whatsoever. Law making,
amendment or policy making are rightly based upon one or more of the following
bases;
a)
Demand made by a popular social movement
The Criminal
Amendment Bill, 2013, focusing on sexual offences against women, resulted in
significant amendments in the main criminal law, the IPC. Many of the
amendments had also been demanded by the robust women’s movement in this
country for over three decades. Thus, in response to the popular anger
expressed by a spontaneous popular movement, there was an amendment in the IPC.
No such popular movement in post-independence India has ever put any popular
pressure on the GoI demanding an omnibus law for all types of trafficking.
b) Pending
recommendations made over the previous years by experienced positive
stakeholders
Ever since the anti-trafficking movement in India got renewed, since
1980 till date no experienced positive stake holder is on record to have
suggested a common omnibus law to address all forms of human trafficking (more
accurately all types of destination crimes of human trafficking).
Not a single Committee, Commission, Judicial Inquiry set up to look into
a mishap or an episode of any kind of human trafficking or on its destination
crimes has even once attributed a situation, or complete failure of the current
system to not having a single omnibus law against all types of trafficking. Not
one of them has ever suggested passing of a single omnibus law as a solution to
the issue of human trafficking.
c) Evaluation
of the existing Policies or Laws
It is a routine practice in good governance to revise public policies
based upon the recommendations of the evaluation studies. Evaluative research plays an important role in
this. No such exercise has ever been undertaken by the Central or the State
governments to evaluate the existing laws, policies or structures on
trafficking. No such evaluative research whatsoever has asked for a single
omnibus law addressing all types of human trafficking. (If there hasn’t been
such an evaluation, then there would definitely be no suggestions.)
d) Empirical
Scientific Research on Human Trafficking
Not one single reasonable research study in India since 1929 has
identified ‘not having a single omnibus law against trafficking’ as the reason
for the problem. Not a single research study has ever recommended the need for
such omnibus law. No sensible survey (of course there are a few research
reports in circulation which are apologies in the name of scientific research)
or case studies of victims of trafficking have shown the absence of a common
omnibus law addressing all types of human trafficking as the reason for the
problem or recommended that as the solution for the problem.
e) Outcome
of several nationwide rounds of open consultations
For quite some time rulers in independent India have
maintained a broad consultative process while making or changing laws and
policies. It is a welcome feature of good governance. Whether it was the 1986
amendments in the ITP Act 1956, the subsequent revisions in the Juvenile
Justice Act (JJ Act) or forming of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act (POCSOA). The GoI has received substantial input from such broad-based
consultation rounds. Not one broad based consultative round in India since independence
has ever demanded a single omnibus law to address all types of human
trafficking.
f) Outcome
of Conferences, Workshops, Consultative Meets
Not one international, national, regional or state
level Conference, Workshop, Consultative Meet has ever demanded or recommended a
single omnibus law to solve the problem of human trafficking.
g) Best
practices set by the Courts
In the Indian scenario, the courts (the High courts
and the Supreme court) have played a significant role in pushing pro-people
reforms where the governments have been in the defendant’s box. This is
particularly so in the anti-trafficking domain. Wherever they have been assisted
by experienced, rational and genuine petitioners, the courts have issued
landmark rulings and orders. The demand for a single omnibus law to address all types of human trafficking has never been indicated as the reason for the huge problem of human trafficking nor has it been ever recommended as a solution.
h) Experiences
and insights of the field practitioners
Genuine field practitioners are a reliable source of
political and social intelligence. Progressive administrators’ and judicial
bodies do take their help in making and changing laws and policies. Except for the frivolous social elements who
mobilize judicial bodies for unsound and unreasonable public interest
litigation (about whom the courts too have adopted a cautious stance), and
‘professional consultants’ who gate-crash as ‘field based civil society
organizations’, no field practitioner has ever recommended a single omnibus law
to address all types of human trafficking.
i) International
Obligation generated by ratifying any UN or SAARC Convention/Protocol
Often as member countries of the United Nations, India
follows the UN Conventions, Protocols and other instruments. Making laws or
mending the existing laws in the light of and under the obligations of the UN
instruments becomes binding on the member country after ratifying the
instruments. No UN Convention or Protocol has ever indicated the absence of
having a single omnibus law addressing all types of human trafficking offences
as the reason for the grave situation, nor has it ever recommended that as a
solution or best practice.
j) Best practice in the world
Every society learns from the successes and failures;
either one’s own or that of the other societies. India has picked up many good
practices from other progressive countries. In the field of human trafficking
we are looking at the Supply Chain related law of Brazil and California state
of the USA. The prostitution related law of Sweden is being presented as the
best practice for India. There has not been any literature projecting the
replacement of specialized laws by one single omnibus law as the best practice.
There is no such best practice to emulate from.
k) Demands
by Victims’ Collective
In all social fields and
especially in the field of human trafficking, the voice and view of the victims
of crime and misogynist evil social practices must be accommodated. None of the
existing traffic victims’ collectives (especially sex trafficking victims in
India) has demanded a single omnibus law to address all types of human
trafficking. Nor has anyone suggested the replacement of the existing
specialized laws by a single omnibus law. However, many of the above quoted
legitimate sources of policy making have commented on the specialized laws and
suggested and demanded moderate changes therein to make them more effective and
more relevant with time. The literature on this is abundantly available in the
public domain.
In conclusion of the foregoing,
it is clear that there is no rational sensible basis in support of the proposal
or demand for a single omnibus law against all types of human trafficking (or
all types of destination crimes of human trafficking).
The demand is thus
unsubstantiated, uncalled for, unnecessary and fancied.
3) The demand for an omnibus
(single) law against all types of trafficking is regressive.
Structural differentiation and functional specificity are two important qualities of modernization. The Indian legal system and social policy have proudly evolved, although their implementation is appallingly poor. Today, we have a special procedural law, the JJ Act and a special law addressing sexual offences against children (POCSOA). We have Special courts like Labour courts, Family courts, CBI court, Trafficking courts, Consumer courts, Children’s courts, POCSOA courts and so on, that have helped faster and sensitive disposal of cases.
We have specialized laws against trafficking, sex
offences, bonded labour, sexual harassment at workplace, domestic violence,
beggary, adoption, etc. The procedures for different victims are also
different. Similarly, we have specialized lawyers in each of these domains.
That is not all, even the magistrates and judges are specialized in each of
these.
In the field of victim assistance, the civil society
organizations (which are voluntary in nature) care takers, service providers,
duty bearers and services are specialized as well.
While on one hand such specialization represents
special knowledge and insight about a particular type of trafficking, it also
indicates the lack of expertise and insight about the other types.
In terms of the government structures - ministries,
departments, sections and services-meant for the victims are all different and
specialized. India operates in a global environment which also follows a
similar system of specialization.
In such a situation the proposal of one single omnibus
anti trafficking law is clearly regressive and will take the society back on
its governance and civilization counts. It will only lead to breakdowns and
confusion.
As against that, the proposers of the omnibus law have
not been able to present a single rational and convincing argument in favour of
the proposal. To state the least what they have articulated is uncalled for,
unsubstantiated, and leading to confusion and breakdown if not entirely absurd.
I shall come to that part in my next communication.
We repeat what we have stated in the beginning of this
communication “The proposal of a single omnibus law against all types of
trafficking is only possible by pinning all the existing specialised laws against the
destination crimes of human trafficking under a new cover page name. This will
only add to confusion, breakdown and wasteful duplication.”
Written by Dr. Pravin Patkar The author is the Co-Founder & Director of Prerana (India’s leading
and pioneering anti-trafficking civil society organization, Retired Faculty
TISS, Ex. Professor-Amrita University, ex Vice Chairperson ECPAT International,
and Fulbright Scholar (Fulbright Nehru Academic and Professional Excellence
Fellow 2015-2016, in residence at University of Rhode Island, USA).
Assisted by Kashina Kareem, Project Manager,
Anti-Trafficking Centre, Prerana
