Magistrate inquiry under anti-trafficking law may begin from any source, with judicial safeguards supporting constitutional validity.

Section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is analysed as allowing a Magistrate to act on information from any source, not only a special police officer, because the provision uses general language and the source of information is merely the trigger for inquiry. The article also notes that the section was upheld as consistent with Article 14 because it rests on a clear public-welfare policy, applies through procedural safeguards, and uses an intelligible classification linked to the statutory object. It further explains that the restrictions on movement and residence were treated as reasonable under Article 19(5) since they operate through judicial inquiry and are proportionate to the public health and morals objective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "on receiving information" in section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is confined to information from a special police officer appointed under section 13; (ii) whether section 20 infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether section 20 imposes unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "on receiving information" in section 20 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 is confined to information from a special police officer appointed under section 13.

Analysis: The expression used in section 20 is general and contains no words limiting the source of information to a special police officer. Section 13 creates a special police officer for dealing with offences under the Act, whereas section 20 concerns a judicial enquiry by a Magistrate and is not confined to offence investigation. The statutory scheme indicates that the receipt of information is only the trigger for the enquiry and that the source of such information is not material.

Conclusion: The expression is not confined to information supplied by a special police officer; information may come from any source.

Issue (ii): Whether section 20 infringes Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act discloses a clear policy to suppress immoral traffic in women and girls, protect public morals, and regulate prostitution in places where it has a harmful public impact. Section 20 contains procedural safeguards: notice, recording of information, opportunity to adduce evidence, inquiry by a Magistrate of high status, and revisional control by superior criminal courts. The classification between prostitutes who create a public nuisance and those who do not is based on intelligible differentia and bears a rational relation to the statutory object. The power is therefore not arbitrary or uncontrolled.

Conclusion: Section 20 does not infringe Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (iii): Whether section 20 imposes unreasonable restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(d) and Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to move freely and to reside in any part of the territory of India is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. The restriction under section 20 is imposed through a judicial process, after inquiry and evidence, to meet the evil of prostitution in crowded or sensitive localities and to protect public health and morals. The breadth of the restriction, including removal from the jurisdiction where necessary, is held to be proportionate to the evil sought to be remedied and subject to revision if disproportionate in a given case.

Conclusion: Section 20 imposes reasonable restrictions within Article 19(5) and does not infringe Article 19(1)(d) or Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The statutory provision was upheld as constitutionally valid, the High Court's orders were set aside, and the proceedings before the Magistrate were restored for determination on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on movement and residence will withstand constitutional challenge where it rests on a clear legislative policy, operates through a judicial inquiry with safeguards, and is reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose.

---