New Delhi, Oct. 23 -- The Supreme Court has moved to protect women engaged in voluntary sex work from being subjected to the same legal process as victims of human trafficking, directing the National Judicial Academy to frame a uniform protocol for magistrates to determine whether rescued women were forced into commercial sexual exploitation or were engaged in the work voluntarily. The court said magistrates across the country must be trained to conduct a mandatory "threshold inquiry" into circumstances of every woman rescued during anti-trafficking operations, even if she claims that her work is voluntary. The exercise is intended to distinguish genuine trafficking victims requiring protection from adult sex workers who should not be subjected to intrusive judicial proceedings or compelled into rehabilitation merely because they were at the site of a raid. The directions, issued recently by a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, build on the court's May 29 judgment in a 2004 public interest litigation filed by NGO Prajwala. The court has now sought to ensure that its extensive victim protection framework is implemented uniformly, acknowledging that judicial directions often risk remaining confined to judgments without any reliable assessment of their impact on the ground. "Once these directions are committed to the paper in the form of a judgment, the matter marks its abrupt end," noted the bench, expressing concern that courts often have no means of knowing whether the frameworks they prescribe are making a measurable difference in people's lives or what obstacles are impeding their implementation. The latest order followed a compliance review in which the court found that several states and Union territories had yet to implement four additional directions issued in May. It also asked the Union government to obtain detailed compliance reports from all stakeholders involved in the victim protection plan and directed the petitioner and the Centre to suggest concrete mechanisms to track its progress and effectiveness. Senior advocate Aparna Bhat, appearing for Prajwala, submitted a detailed compliance table identifying the responsibilities assigned to the various stakeholders under the May judgment. The bench commended the exercise, saying it would help monitor compliance with its directions. Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati presented the Centre's status note on steps taken so far. The central concern behind the latest directions is the danger of treating all women found during anti-trafficking raids as a single category, irrespective of whether they have been trafficked, are being coerced into sex work or have chosen it voluntarily. In its May 29 judgment, the Supreme Court held that the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, or ITPA, must not be used to subject adult voluntary sex workers to the same rescue, custody and rehabilitation procedures meant to protect victims of trafficking. It underscored that prostitution, in itself, is not an offence under the law and that voluntary adult sex workers must not be arrested, penalised, harassed or victimised during raids merely because they are found in a brothel. Drawing on the Law Commission's 64th report and its earlier ruling in Budhadev Karmaskar Vs State of West Bengal (2022), the court said the statutory framework was never intended to interfere with the lives of adults who engage in sex work of their own volition. The Law Commission specifically reasoned that the question of rescuing a woman does not arise when she is engaged in prostitution voluntarily. The May judgment noted that the existing framework under ITPA sections 15, 16 and 17 could bring a wide range of women within the same process, from those trafficked against their will to those who had chosen sex work for themselves. A mandatory preliminary judicial determination was therefore necessary to prevent voluntary adult sex workers from being drawn into a deeper inquiry into their age, character, antecedents and family circumstances, which could keep them away from their lives and families. Under the framework laid down by the court, a magistrate must examine the rescued adult woman's consent and wishes, her account of whether her work was voluntary, the social worker's assessment, the possibility of threats, coercion, force or undue influence, and any safety concerns that could expose her to immediate danger or re-trafficking if released....