E KATHIRVELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORDER of the Court was made by P. D. DINAKARAN, J.)Human Trafficking is the modern-day slave trade, which poses a global threat. The Trafficking is increasingly becoming an organized crime and the same raises serious public health concerns. It spreads across the continents, which is a matter of serious concern. The threat of human trafficking was discussed in threadbare by the Apex Court in various decisions, viz. , in Laxmi Kant Pande vs. Union of India, [air 1984 SC 469, AIR 1986 SC 272, AIR 1987 SC 232, 2001 (9) SCC 379], in Karnataka State Council for Child Welfare vs. Society of Sisters of Charity ST. Gerosa Convent (AIR 1984 SC 658), in Sumanlak Chhotelall Kamdar vs. Miss Asha Trilokbhai Saha (AIR 1995 SC 1892), in Indian Council Social Welfare vs. State of A. P. (1999 (6) SCC 365), in Anoksha vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 (1) SCC 382) and in St. Therasas Tender Loving Care Home and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2005 SC 4375) as well as by a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 2. 5. 2003 in the case of A. P. John Clemants and another (C. M. A. Nos. 2009 and 2076 of 2002) and by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Banu vs. Raghupathy, Principal Thiruvalluvar Gurukulam School and Ors. in the recent decision dated 19. 6. 2007 in H. C. P. No. 1139 of 2006 ).

(2.) THAT apart, pursuant to the directions given by the Apex Court in the Laxmi Kant Pande's case, referred supra, the Ministry of Social Welare Department, Government of India, also constituted an agency called Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), the third respondent herein, on 28th June, 1990, to oversee the domestic and inter-country adoptions. The said agency, CARA also framed certain guidelines for inter-country adoptions. Repeated guidelines are being issued from time to time by the Apex Court as well as by various other High Courts to the Department of Social Welfare as also to the Legal Services Authority, CARA and other special groups, both at Central and State, requiring them to ensure the guidelines presecribed scrupulously. But, still the grievance of human trafficking continues.

(3.) THE above are the three cases that are only illustrative. H. C. P. No. 324 of 2006 is by the father of the detenu by name Satish Kumar. According to him, on the night of 9. 3. 99, he along with his wife and the detenu child, aged 1 = years old, were sleeping outside the house and when his wife woke up at about 3. 00 a. m. on 9/10. 3. 99, she found her son Satish Kumar, who was sleeping beside her, was missing. According to the petitioner, even though on the very next day, a complaint was lodged at the second respondent police station and a case was registered in Crime No. 391 of 1999 and investigation was taken up and subsequently, the case was transferred to the file of CBCID, by an order of the Director General of Police on 20. 9. 2006, till date the respondents could not make any improvement in the investigation, obviously for the reason that the child had already been given in adoption to the parents at Netherlands.