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?

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.