Discuss the constitutional basis on which the Supreme Court has framed a 'Victim Protection Plan' for trafficking survivors. Does judicially crafted policy-making of this kind undermine or supplement legislative competence?

Q. Discuss the constitutional basis on which the Supreme Court has framed a 'Victim Protection Plan' for trafficking survivors. Does judicially crafted policy-making of this kind undermine or supplement legislative competence? (15 marks, 250-350 words)

In Prajwala v. Union of India (2026 INSC 609), decided on 29 May 2026, the Supreme Court closed 22 years of litigation by framing a binding nationwide Victim Protection Plan for survivors of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation, holding rehabilitation to be a fundamental right rather than State charity [1].

Constitutional basis of the Plan - Article 23 — the prohibition on traffic in human beings is read as imposing a positive duty on the State, not merely a negative bar; protection and rehabilitation flow from it [1]. - Article 21 — dignity jurisprudence anchors the core holding that rescued persons are victims, not offenders, and cannot be detained in police stations or AHTU premises [1]. - Autonomy and informed consent — the Court rejected paternalistic rescue, cautioning against conflating adult sex work with trafficking; rehabilitation cannot be imposed against a victim's will [1]. - Article 32 and continuing mandamus — a six-stage framework (pre-rescue to prosecution) resting on six principles, including non-criminalisation and confidentiality, was issued to fill a gap left by the ITPA, 1956, which is rescue-and-penalty centric and silent on a uniform protection protocol [1][2].

The case that it undermines legislative competence - Detailed institutional prescriptions — DSP-rank heads for AHTUs, two women officers each, protective-home standards — enter the executive and legislative domain and carry fiscal consequences for States already funding 827 AHTUs through the Nirbhaya Fund [1][3]. - Judicial guidelines bypass democratic deliberation and, unlike statute, cannot create offences or penalties.

The case that it supplements - The Plan operates in a legislative vacuum, in the Vishaka tradition, and yields the moment Parliament legislates — the anti-trafficking Bill remains pending. - It largely operationalises existing commitments under the ITPA and the Ujjawala scheme rather than authoring fresh law [2][4].

The Plan is best read as constitutional gap-filling: it converts scattered executive schemes into an enforceable, dignity-centred standard. Its durability, however, depends on Parliament enacting a comprehensive anti-trafficking law and States resourcing implementation, so that Articles 21 and 23 translate into lived protection for survivors.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Prajwala v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 609, Supreme Court of India (29 May 2026) — Victim Protection Plan, six stages and principles, Articles 21 and 23 basis, victims-not-offenders holding, AHTU composition norms 2. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 — India Code — existing statutory framework and its rescue-and-penalty orientation 3. PIB, Ministry of Home Affairs: Schemes under Nirbhaya Fund for women's safety — AHTUs functional across States/UTs and Nirbhaya Fund financing 4. Ujjawala Scheme, Ministry of Women and Child Development — existing executive scheme for rescue, rehabilitation and reintegration