- Supreme Court warning on child trafficking has raised serious concern among parents across the country. In a strong statement, the court cautioned families to remain alert, emphasizing the rising threat of child traffickers targeting vulnerable children.
In a ruling on Tuesday, April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court cautioned parents to be “extremely vigilant” about their children in order to protect them from gangs that traffic children for forced labor, child marriage, armed conflict, forced labor, sexual exploitation, begging, and even the sale of infants under false pretenses of international adoption.
As part of the Supreme Court warning on child trafficking, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan gave a chilling and heart-rending portrayal of the helplessness of child victims and their loved ones, mostly drawn from the poor sections of society and hardly equipped to deal with the well-networked child kidnapping racket, which uses technology to share information, photographs, victim locations, and transfer money.
“We want to send a message to everyone, especially parents nationwide, that they should continue to be very watchful and cautious with their kids. Even a small amount of carelessness, negligence, or laxity on their side could have disastrous consequences. Judge Pardiwala noted that the anguish and suffering that parents may experience when a kid passes away is not the same as the anguish and suffering that parents may experience when they lose their children to such trafficking groups.
95-Page Verdict Highlights Supreme Court Warning on Child Trafficking
In the 95-page ruling, the parents of the kids, represented by prominent attorney Aparna Bhat, appealed the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant bail to 13 members of an interstate child trafficking ring, the majority of whom have since fled and whose locations are unknown to the authorities. At least one of the defendants worked as a nurse at a Chhattisgarh basic health facility.
As part of the Supreme Court warning on child trafficking, the court held that hospitals would face licence suspension and legal action if newborns were found missing and trafficked.
“It is the hospital administration’s duty to protect the newborn infant in every way when a woman comes to give birth in any hospital,” Justice Pardiwala said.
The apex court said trafficking of children to force them into crime was on the rise due to protections offered to minors in the juvenile justice system.
As highlighted in the Supreme Court warning on child trafficking, the court observed that “a protection mechanism for children is exploited as a safe haven for committing heinous crimes.”
Justice Pardiwala said significant waiting periods for adoption in India had encouraged criminal networks to engage in large-scale abduction and sale of children.
“They are aware of the technology, they recognize demand, and they recognize the need to operate as a network,” the ruling stated, citing their operations and the relative ease with which they are able to operate and find customers for selling the children outside of their States.
Supreme Court Warning on Child Trafficking Cancels Bail Amid
The Bench revoked the bail that the High Court had given the accused. It claimed that the High Court’s decision to release them was “very callous.” The supreme court mandated that their trial be finished within six months. Two months were allotted to the police to find the fugitive suspects. The top court mandated that three Special Public Prosecutors be appointed and that the victims’ families be granted witness protection.
As part of the ongoing Supreme Court warning on child trafficking, the Bench criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for its inaction, stating it had hardly bothered to even appeal against the High Court’s decision. “We are thoroughly disappointed with the manner in which the State handled the situation… The State unfortunately has exhibited no seriousness worth the name,” Justice Pardiwala noted.
All ongoing child trafficking cases nationwide were requested to be retrieved by the High Courts, and the trials were to be finished within six months.
Justice Pardiwala emphasized that any officials who disregard the Supreme Court’s orders or act laxly risk being found in contempt.
