Wrongful Confinement and Trafficking: Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Employer, Addresses Rights of Domestic Workers (29 January 2025)

Date of the Judgment: 29 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 118
Judges: Surya Kant, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can an employer be charged with wrongful confinement if a domestic worker is found in their locked house, but has an alternative exit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, along with the larger issue of the rights of domestic workers. The court quashed charges against an employer, Ajay Malik, finding no evidence of wrongful confinement or human trafficking. The bench comprised Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, with Justice Surya Kant authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The complainant, from a Scheduled Tribe in Chhattisgarh, was brought to Delhi in 2009 by her neighbors, Subhash and Mohan Ram, under the guise of employment. She was then handed over to Shambhu, who ran Saint Maryam Placement Services. This agency deployed her as a domestic worker in various homes without proper compensation. She reported being assaulted when asking for pay or to return home. On 16 October 2016, Ajay Malik hired the complainant through the same agency to work at his residence in Dehradun. On 22 March 2017, Ajay Malik left for official duty, leaving the complainant in his locked house, with a spare key given to his neighbor, Ashok Kumar. The complainant contacted the police on 29 March 2017, alleging wrongful confinement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The police filed an FIR on 30 March 2017 against Ajay Malik, Mohan Ram, Subhash, and Shambhu under Sections 343 and 370 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The complainant’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Ajay Malik filed a petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court rejected this petition and his subsequent compounding application. Ashok Kumar, also charged, had his discharge application rejected by the Sessions Court. However, the High Court allowed his revision application, discharging him from the case.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around Sections 343, 370, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Section 343 of the IPC defines wrongful confinement as restraining a person in a way that prevents them from moving beyond certain limits. Section 370 of the IPC deals with human trafficking and exploitation. Section 120B of the IPC pertains to criminal conspiracy, which requires an agreement to commit an offense. The court also considered Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which lists compoundable offenses.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of Ajay Malik:

• The complainant’s statement indicates she merely asked to leave and Ajay Malik requested she stay until other arrangements were made.
• A no-objection affidavit from the complainant denies any confinement or mistreatment.
• The allegations are linked to disputes with the Placement Agency, not Ajay Malik.

Arguments on behalf of Ashok Kumar:

• Ashok Kumar is a DRDO officer with no criminal record.
• He was merely holding the key to Ajay Malik’s residence and was unaware of any alleged confinement.
• He is not named in the FIR or the complainant’s statement.

Arguments on behalf of the State of Uttarakhand:

• The complainant was locked in the house, with the key held by Ashok Kumar.
• The complainant’s statements describe her inability to leave the premises.
• The no-objection affidavit lacks credibility due to the complainant’s vulnerable status.
• Ashok Kumar was aware of the confinement, yet did nothing.

Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments made by the defense, particularly regarding the availability of an alternative exit and the complainant’s subsequent statements, were key in challenging the prosecution’s case. The defense also highlighted the lack of direct evidence against both Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting Ajay Malik’s quashing petition under Section 482 of the CrPC?
2. Whether the High Court erred in rejecting Ajay Malik’s compounding application?
3. Whether the High Court was correct in accepting Ashok Kumar’s Criminal Revision and discharging him?
4. Whether the existing legal framework in India sufficiently protects the rights of domestic workers?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed Ajay Malik’s appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and quashing the charges against him. The court dismissed the State’s appeal against Ashok Kumar, upholding the High Court’s order discharging him. The court also directed the government to form a committee to consider a legal framework for domestic workers.

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303*: Used to support the idea of quashing proceedings based on settlement.
• Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 INSC 217*: Used to support the idea of quashing proceedings based on settlement.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259*: Used to support the quashing of frivolous prosecutions.
• Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, 2013 (3) SCC 330*: Used to support the quashing of frivolous prosecutions.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335*: Used to outline the court’s power to quash proceedings.
• State of Kerala v. P. Sugathan and Anr., (2000) 8 SCC 203*: Used to define the elements of criminal conspiracy.
• Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, (2003) 3 SCC 641*: Used to show that conspiracy requires physical manifestation.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The court was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence for wrongful confinement, the complainant’s subsequent statements denying the allegations, and the availability of an alternative exit from the house. The court also considered the lack of direct involvement of Ashok Kumar and the absence of any criminal intent on his part. The court gave significant weight to the complainant’s no-objection affidavit and her statements during video conferencing.

The court’s reasoning was based on a careful evaluation of the facts presented, including the complainant’s statements, the recovery memo, and the site plan of the premises. The court also considered the legal principles of wrongful confinement, human trafficking, and criminal conspiracy. The court’s decision was influenced by the factual circumstances of the case, which did not support the charges against Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar.

The court considered alternative interpretations of the facts, particularly regarding the availability of an alternative exit and the complainant’s statements. However, the court rejected these alternative interpretations, finding that the evidence did not support the charges against Ajay Malik and Ashok Kumar. The court’s decision was based on a holistic consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court stated: “On an objective consideration of this uncontroverted material on record , there can be no other conclusion except to hold that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, do not disclose the commission of an offence by Ajay Malik under Section 343 of the IPC.”

The Supreme Court also stated: “In this vein, having duly and holistically considered all of these aspects in toto, we are of the opinion that no prima facie offence under Section 370 of the IPC qua Ajay Malik has been made out as well. Not only is there no evidence of neglect or exploitation of the Complainant by Ajay Malik on record, but her own sworn statements in denying any abuse must also be given due credence.”

Further, the Supreme Court stated: “For these reasons, we have no hesitation in upholding the correctness of the reasoned order of the High Court , in allowing the discharge of Ashok Kumar from the criminal proceedings. Given the demonstrable lack of any mens rea or intent on the part of Ashok Kumar, apart from the lack of any direct involvement, his discharge is well -founded and warrants no interference by this Court.”

There were no minority opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom concurred with the final decision.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving wrongful confinement and human trafficking, particularly in cases involving domestic workers. The court’s emphasis on the need for a comprehensive legal framework for domestic workers may lead to significant policy changes in the future. The court’s decision also highlights the importance of considering all the facts and circumstances of a case before framing charges. The court also noted that the complainant’s actions were driven by fear of being exploited by the Placement Agency, which led her to lodge the complaint.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it emphasized the need for a comprehensive legal framework to protect domestic workers, which is a significant development in the context of labor law in India.

Key Takeaways

• Charges of wrongful confinement require evidence of actual restraint, not just being locked in a house.
• A complainant’s subsequent statements and affidavits can significantly impact a case.
• The court emphasized the need for a legal framework to protect domestic workers.
• The judgment highlights the importance of mens rea in criminal cases.
• The case underscores the vulnerability of domestic workers and the need for better legal protection.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Labour and Employment, in collaboration with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, to form a committee of experts. This committee will consider recommending a legal framework to protect the rights of domestic workers. The committee is expected to submit a report within six months, after which the government may introduce a relevant legal framework.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that charges of wrongful confinement require evidence of actual restraint, and that a complainant’s subsequent statements and affidavits can significantly impact a case. The court also emphasized the need for a legal framework to protect domestic workers. There was no change in the previous positions of law, but the case highlights the need for a new legal framework for domestic workers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the charges against Ajay Malik, finding no evidence of wrongful confinement, human trafficking, or criminal conspiracy. It upheld the discharge of Ashok Kumar. The court also directed the government to form a committee to consider a legal framework for domestic workers, recognizing their vulnerability and the need for legal protection. This judgment underscores the importance of evidence in criminal cases and the need for comprehensive labor laws.