State Can Keep Trafficking Victims In Govt Home Even After Attaining Majority If 'Release Not In Their Best Interest': Telangana High Court

While hearing a habeas corpus plea alleging illegal detention of two 19-year-olds in a State Home, the Telangana High Court held that the detenues–stated to be victims of trafficking–being major would not automatically mean that they must be released upon attaining majority if it is not in their best interest. 

A division bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar said:

"Admittedly, the detenues were minors when they were rescued by the Yadagirigutta Police on 17.08.2018 from a trafficking racket. Both the detenues are now 19 years old. However, it does not automatically follow that the child must be released upon attaining majority if the release is not in the best interest of the child. The CWC is fully empowered to take a decision with regard to the further detention or release of the child bearing in mind her safety, welfare and rehabilitation as priorities: Girish Kumar Vs. The State of U.P. Shifa @ Mannu (supra) involved a case a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the ground that the detenue is a major and should hence not be kept in Nari Niketan against her wishes. The Allahabad High Court held that the Writ could not lie against a lawful order of a competent authority such as the CWC". 

The court also gave some suggestions in order to balance the detenues' right to autonomy with the duty of the State to protect them. It said that the State must be cautious "not to infantilize" the detenues by denying them agency; however it also cannot turn a blind eye to the "history of exploitation and the possibility" of the detenues' being influenced by anti-social and criminal elements.

It thus suggested:

1. State Should assess whether a victim of trafficking is in a position to make an informed decision about leaving.
2. A mental health examination of the victim to gauge whether they are capable of making an independent and informed decision,
3. Risk assessment, to gauge protective measures,
4. Provide a State Home Exit Plan including State Housing Programme,
5. Legal protection in the form of restraining orders against individual who pose immediate threat 
6. Education, vocational training and place the victims in a suitable employment away from exploitation
7.Provide monetary and support structure to a victim if the victim decides to leave the care facilities
8. The State can also approach the Court for necessary orders for temporary guardianship arrangement or a Court monitoring system to be put into place for safeguarding the victim. 

Background

The court did so while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Kamsani Anjali, who claimed to be a 'close friend' of two detenues alleged to be held in a State Home, even after attaining majority. 

The petitioner said that was also released from the State Home pursuant to an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the high court and claimed that the detenues  “begged” the petitioner for their release and requested the petitioner to engage a lawyer to take up their case. 

It was submitted that the detenues are not allowed to lead an independent life or engage counsel to represent their case and hence intend to return to their respective families. It was argued that the detenues were detained without any legal sanction in a State Home which is contrary to The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The State placed several documents to show that the release of the detenues would not be in their best interest since both the detenues were rescued on 17.08.2018 by the Yadagirigutta Police as part of human trafficking rescue operation and were victims of human trafficking. The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) reviewed the case of the detenues on 13.02.2024 and 22.05.2024 and passed orders transferring the detenues from Prajwala to the State Home. 

The detenues submitted written representations on 21.08.2025 requesting their release and being returned to their families. The State expressed concern on the alleged detenues being re-victimised in the trafficking racket in Yadagirigutta after their release. 

Findings

In the present case the court noted:

"Notably, a Writ of Habeas Corpus is founded on a strong moral fibre where the Court roots for personal liberty subject to the unimpeachable credentials of the petitioner who seeks to liberate the detenues. In the present case, the relief for Habeas Corpus fails under all three counts". 

The bench said that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition as the petitioner's capacity to ensure an empowered life for the detenues upon their release is "riddled with uncertainty".

It said that the Special Government Pleader had produced the documents which revealed that although the petitioner got admission at a College in Hyderabad, the petitioner refused to attend the college on the ground of distance and other logistical problems.

Hence, the petitioner's credentials as a responsible friend who is concerned about the future of the detenues does not inspire confidence, the court said. 

"...the facts brought to our notice by the respondents raises a real likelihood of the detenues being pushed into the sex trade once they are free from the protective confines of the State Home. The petitioner's argument that the detenues should be free to script their futures is not compelling enough to dispel the risk of re-victimization. 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. Besides, both the detenues are material witnesses in sensitive trafficking and POCSO cases which are pending trial which further necessitates their protection from influence and intimidation," it added.

The court further said that keeping the alleged detenues within the protective confines of the State Home under the over-arching legislative scheme of the JJ Act, 2015 does not amount to an illegal detention.

"The concept of 'Aftercare' within a structured support system of supervision can only be seen as protective custody. The above reasons compel us to hold that the detenues being lodged in the State Home does not amount to illegal detention under any circumstances," the court said.  

The Court pointed out, that Article 39(f) burdens the State with the responsibility of ensuring that individuals are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment. That the JJ Act, 2015 provides for 'aftercare' of children leaving child care institutions on completion of  18 years.

“Hence, the State is both under a Constitutional as well as a legal statutory mandate to extend support and infrastructure to children who have become adults in the process of confinement. More important, the State cannot wash its hands from continuous protection of children and from ensuring meaningful re-integration into society after they attain adulthood.”

Adding to that, the bench observed, that the 'detention' was ordered by a CWC and District Welfare Officer. It said that the order was passed within the scheme of the JJ Act and could not be termed illegal. 

The plea was dismissed.

Case title: K. Anjali vs. State of Telangana

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Vasudha Nagraj

Counsel for State: Special Govenrment Pleader attached to the office of AAG, Swaroop Oorilla and Senior Advocate Ravi Chander

Click Here To Read/Download Order