PROSECUTION
The government’s law enforcement progress was unknown as the government did not provide adequate disaggregated anti- trafficking data. Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prohibits most forms of sex trafficking and prescribes sufficiently stringent penalties ranging from seven years’ to life imprisonment. These penalties are commensurate with those prescribed for other serious crimes, such as rape. Section 370 does not, however, provide that the prostitution of a child under the age of 18 is an act of human trafficking in the absence of coercive means, the standard of the 2000 UN TIP Protocol, though the prostitution of children is criminalized under other statutes. Section 370 also criminalizes government officials’ involvement in human trafficking, prescribing sentences up to life imprisonment. Section 166A of the IPC holds police responsible for delays in registering a First Information Report after a victim makes a complaint. Punishment for inaction ranges from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment. India also prohibits many forms of forced labor through the Bonded Labor System Abolition Act (BLSA), the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and other provisions of the IPC; however, these provisions were unevenly enforced and their prescribed penalties are not sufficiently stringent. India prohibits most forms of sex trafficking under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act (ITPA) and various provisions of the IPC. However, the ITPA also criminalizes other offenses, including prostitution, and is often used to prosecute sex trafficking victims.
The government did not report comprehensive law enforcement data on all forms of human trafficking.The National Crimes Record

Bureau released aggregated data on enforcement efforts under the ITPA and a limited number of IPC provisions, which only addressed sex trafficking of girls, rather than a broader range of human trafficking crimes, including bonded and forced labor.The data did not specify the number of investigations, prosecutions, or convictions carried out by the government and potentially included the government’s penalization of victims in the statistics, as the ITPA criminalizes soliciting clients for prostitution and screening for sex trafficking victims is not consistently applied. While some of the 29 states reported law enforcement data on human trafficking, the information covers only a portion of the country and cannot be extrapolated. Failures by law enforcement to apply anti-trafficking laws fairly were widely reported in the Indian press; incidents of inaction by police and prosecutors reflected inconsistent application of the law across jurisdictions, corruption among officials, and a lack of awareness or capacity in some parts of the country. Some NGOs assessed that many of the AHTUs were not functioning and lacked clear mandates vis-à-vis other district- and state-level police units, while others noted significant cooperation with AHTUs on investigations, particularly in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu states. NGOs also generally noted judges and courts did not have sufficient resources to properly prosecute cases, including an adequate number of support staff, such as stenographers and translators.Victims who received compensation under 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code received back wages under minimum wage laws; these successes were largely facilitated by NGOs working with victims of bonded or forced labor.
Official complicity in human trafficking occurred at varying levels of government. The government did not report investigations, prosecutions, or convictions of government officials complicit in human trafficking offenses. Some corrupt law enforcement officers protected suspected traffickers and brothel owners from enforcement of the law, took bribes from sex trafficking establishments and sexual services from victims, and tipped-off sex and labor traffickers to impede rescue efforts. Some owners of brothels, rice mills, brick kilns, and stone quarries who engaged in trafficking were politically connected. In May 2014, four children were rescued from a child prostitution racket in which Puducherry police and politicians were allegedly complicit. After it became clear that a large-scale investigation had not been completed, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights issued a notice to the Puducherry government requesting action and the Madras High Court ordered the Puducherry police to properly identify suspects; subsequently eight Puducherry police officers were charged with rape, five of whom remained at large at the end of the reporting period. In February 2015, police charged a state government boarding school superintendent with child sex trafficking. In November 2013, a member of parliament and his wife were arrested for the alleged torture and murder of their domestic servant, investigation of the case remained ongoing. The Indian consular officer at the New York consulate who was indicted in December 2013 for visa fraud related to her alleged exploitation of an Indian domestic worker returned to India where no charges were filed.
The government collaborated with international organizations, NGOs, and state governments in its efforts to train police, judges, and lawyers on the proper handling of trafficking cases.The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) continued to offer a human trafficking certificate course through a public university and reported training for prosecutors and judges on trafficking had been conducted

in every district. In May 2014, the MHA held a video conference between the joint secretary and the principal trafficking officers in each state to discuss best practices in operating AHTUs. State and local governments also conducted training.

PROTECTION
The government relied on past efforts to protect and assist victims and did not make appreciable progress during the reporting period; the implementation of services remained inconsistent and the penalization of victims remained a serious concern. A 2009 MHA non-binding directive advises state officials to use SOPs to proactively identify victims and refer them to protection services; however, law enforcement officers at the district level were not appropriately trained to identify victims and there is no information such SOPs were used during the year.The government did not provide information on the number of trafficking victims it identified. NGOs reported law enforcement officers were more proactive in staging rescue operations in 2014; however, some police believed their responsibility concluded with the rescue operation, and did not complete investigations or charge suspects. Rescued bonded laborers are entitled to “release certificates” enabling them to receive compensation, but victims sometimes experienced lengthy delays before obtaining the certificates.The government frequently penalized victims. There were reports of victims being detained and arrested for acts committed as a result of being subjected to trafficking, including sex trafficking victims who were prosecuted and convicted for solicitation and obscenity in public places. In June 2014, the government began denying travel and family reunification of trafficking victims by confiscating the passports of Indian nationals who had received a visa from a foreign government indicating the person was a trafficking victim in the foreign country or was a family member of a victim. An Indian High Court ruled in favor of petitioners who had their passports confiscated as a result of this policy, citing a violation of rights guaranteed under the Indian constitution.The Indian government has not appealed the decision in this case. Cases involving additional petitioners similarly affected by this policy remained pending at the close of the reporting period.
The Ministry of Women and Child Development funded shelter and rehabilitation services for women and children through two programs—the Ujjawala program, specifically for female sex trafficking victims, and the Swadhar program, for women in difficult circumstances. NGOs noted the government has gradually reduced funding to the Ujjawala program and is considering future program reforms.Victim care services were inconsistent and the number of government shelters was too few. Contrary to international principles on victim protection, some government-run shelters continued to not permit adult victims to leave the premises. In some cases, victims continued to be released from shelters to their traffickers who pretended to be family members or otherwise convinced shelter managers to release victims to them. Both government- and NGO-run shelters faced shortages of financial resources and trained personnel, particularly of counselors and medical staff. NGOs relied primarily on donor contributions to provide victims services, though some received government funds. The disbursal of government funding to NGOs was sometimes delayed and corruption reportedly drained resources intended for victim care. Due to the lack of government funds, shelter staff, or police escorts, victims were sometimes not transferred from temporary “transit homes” to shelters that provide more long-term care for months after the victim was formally identified. Victims had access to government hospitals for emergency medical