Page 17 - Tehelka Issue 15 August 2018

human trafficking

pees. Pathi was transported to Colombo by an organ
trafficker in 2015 and promised hefty money; how-
ever, the concerned person is now missing.
In April 2018, a critique of the Anti-Trafficking Bill
was submitted before Gandhi by Shashi Tharoor,
who was accompanied by almost 250 activists, law-
yers and civil society organisations.
One of the highlights in the critique on “aggravat-
ed forms of trafficking” explains: “The anti-traffick-
ing Bill does not redefine trafficking but incorporates
the existing definition under section 370, IPC. It, how-
ever, creates a new category of “aggravated forms of
trafficking”, which carry a minimum sentence of 10
years, which may extend to life imprisonment. Some
of the aggravated forms of trafficking introduced in
the Bill are “trafficking for the purposes of forced la-
bour, begging, marriage and child-bearing”, which
are already criminalised under section 370, IPC. This
is borne out by the National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB) reports, which provide purpose-wise disag-
gregated data on human trafficking cases under the
IPC. According to the NCRB (National Crime Records
Bureau), in 2016, the police registered 10,357 cases of Kailash Satyarthi,
trafficking for forced labour, 349 cases of trafficking
for forced marriage and 71 cases of trafficking for Children’s rights
begging. The claim that these are “new” forms of traf-
ficking that are not addressed under existing laws is
totally baseless. ” activist and
After thorough discussion with the stakeholders
and experts of the Bill, Tehelka would like to point Nobel Peace
out the following clauses which have attracted vehe-
Prize recipient
ment opposition.
Chapter V, Section (17) 4 under the category Search,
Rescue And Post-Rescue Activities, if a rescued adult The Bill does not undermine the interests
makes an application for his release and chooses not of those whom you have mentioned in your
to go to a rehabilitation home, it can be denied by the question. While the Bill does protect and
magistrate. rehabilitate child victims of trafficking, it
leaves to the choice of an adult sex worker to
Chapter VIII Section 26 (4) introduces a forceful accept or decline the option of rehabilitative
order of repatriation of the victims within three services.
months for inter- State repatriation, and within six The Bill clearly takes into account the
months in case of cross-border repatriation, from consent of the person withdrawn. If an adult
the date of rescue by the District Anti-Trafficking person voluntarily makes an application
Committee. This clause ignores the feeling of shame supported by an affidavit for declining
and the apathy of the society that a victim may go rehabilitative services and the Magistrate is
through upon his arrival back home and violates his satisfied after making an inquiry and finds
liberty. that the applicant is not a minor and that the
application has not been made under threat,
Chapter X, Section 29 (1) under the category Forfei- duress and coercion then the Magistrate may
ture and Attachment Of Property, where any prop- pass an order in favor of the applicant. Special
erty is, or is likely to be used for the “place of traffick- vulnerabilities of transgender such as threat of
ing” may be closed down, which includes factory, HIV and forced engagement in begging have
offices, shops, land, location and conveyance. Thus, also been addressed as aggravated offences
the clause empowers the law enforcement to seize within the Bill.

tehelka / 15 august 2018 17 www.tehelka.com