Delhi child rights panel sends recommendations on Centre’s proposed anti-trafficking bill

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) on Wednesday sent a series of recommendations to the Union ministry of women and child development on the draft Tafficking in Persons (prevention, care, and rehabilitation) Bill, 2021, and also expressed several reservations about the bill in its current form

The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) on Wednesday sent a series of recommendations to the Union ministry of women and child development on the draft Tafficking in Persons (prevention, care, and rehabilitation) Bill, 2021, and also expressed several reservations about the bill in its current form.

HT Image

The Centre, on June 30, issued a public notice inviting recommendations on the draft bill. According to the ministry, the objective of the bill is to prevent and counter the trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

In a letter addressed to the ministry, DCPCR chairperson Anurag Kundu on Wednesday raised objections over the alleged exclusion of child rights statutory bodies in the bill.

“The Commission notes that the National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has not been included. Similarly, section 6(2) skips the State Commission For Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR). Since children are vulnerable to trafficking, it is crucial that the child rights statutory bodies are included in the National and State Anti-Human Trafficking Committees. Similarly, the Commission recommends inclusion of ChildLine within the national and state-level committees considering their crucial role for protecting children,” he said in the letter.

In its recommendations, the DCPCR said the present draft has “no safeguards” in place. “It is a settled principle and the law that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution and not the accused. The proposed bill reverses the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt... This is a problematic position and is a dangerous precedent. There are special laws, where the burden of proof is reversed, but those special laws contain safeguards. The proposed draft of the bill has no safeguards. The absence of safeguards makes it a draconian law,” Kundu further said, adding that certain safeguards can be provided to the accused before imposing any form of reverse burden to uphold the constitutional validity of the provisions of the bill/Act.

Referring to Section 49 of the proposed bill, the DCPCR said, “The bill states that even the bail shall not be given unless “the designated court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence. This is the definition of acquittal and hence cannot be the standard for granting bail. Such a provision threatens the most basic jurisprudence of the justice system. This essentially declares the accused guilty without trial.”

The commission further recommended a “monitoring and evaluation mechanism”, which is missing from the bill. It also suggested that timelines mentioned in the draft be shortened and the bill, as a whole, be made “gender-neutral” as the victim has been mentioned as “he/him” throughout.

No immediate response was available from the ministry.