What the bench was told
During hearings in a batch of criminal appeals related to intra-state child-trafficking, Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Aparna Bhat informed the court that Pinki and her husband employed through a contractor by the Dashashwamedh Ward of the Varanasi Municipal Corporation had their services terminated after they petitioned the Supreme Court. The couple had challenged bail orders granted by the Allahabad High Court in a case where their one-year-old child was allegedly kidnapped in 2023.
The bench observed that, since the Supreme Court had taken a serious view of child trafficking in the matter, the authority “seems to have got agitated” and terminated the couple’s services. The court directed counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Advocate Garvesh Kabra, to ensure the couple was reinstated by 12 pm on December 2 and to report compliance by the end of the day.
Judicial rebuke and remedial orders
The Supreme Court warned that failure to reinstate the sweepers on the same terms and conditions would lead to suspension of the authority responsible. The bench’s strong reaction followed earlier judicial criticism of the manner in which the Allahabad High Court granted bail to several accused in the trafficking network, describing that approach as “callous” and querying why the State had not sought cancellation of those bail orders.
Broader case context
These proceedings arise from criminal appeals filed by kin of children allegedly trafficked by an intra-state network. In April, the Supreme Court cancelled bail for 13 accused previously released by the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had granted bail partly because many accused were not named in the FIR and because some co-accused had received bail; however, several of those granted bail later absconded, prompting re-arrest and cancellation of orders by the Supreme Court.
The top court has also directed expedited trials, sought data on pending child-trafficking trials from High Courts and instructed trial courts to pass compensation orders wherever hearings have concluded but awards have not been issued. Compensation is to be considered under the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 and relevant state schemes.
Directions and next steps
The bench sought further assistance and information from senior law officers, including Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave in respect of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The matter is listed as PINKI v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. (MA 729/2025 in Crl.A. No. 1927/2025), with appearances by Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat and Advocate Garvesh Kabra.
The Supreme Court’s stern response highlights judicial sensitivity to victim protection and the impropriety of administrative action that appears to punish those seeking judicial redress. Observers say the reinstatement order sends a clear signal that access to justice cannot be penalised by administrative reprisals.
