In the recent Chhattisgarh case involving the arrest of two Catholic sisters accused of human trafficking and forced conversion, several crucial legal and procedural elements have come to light:

Human Trafficking Case and NIA Court

• Key Point: The trafficking charges were widely reported upon the women’s arrest at a railway station, following orchestrated public pressure from Bajrang Dal activists.
• Notably, Indian anti-trafficking law applies when there is exploitation, forced movement, or circumstances amounting to slavery. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) or similar special courts typically hear such cases if there is evidence of organized cross-border or severe interstate crimes.
• In this instance, the girls were not being sent abroad, and the evidence indicates they were adults, had valid tickets, and possessed written parental consent[1][3]. They were reportedly en route to work in a convent kitchen in Agra, not being trafficked for illegal work[1][3]. As such, legal experts and rights groups have argued the human trafficking charge is unlikely to withstand scrutiny in an NIA court or even regular criminal courts, as neither the element of force, deception, nor illegal cross-border movement appears present.
• Precedents exist for such cases collapsing in higher courts when the “victims” had agency, consent, and no evidence of exploitation was found.

Conversion Case Legality

• Current Law: Anti-conversion laws in Indian states target forced or fraudulent conversions, not voluntary movement or change of religion. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly held that mere travel or association with religious institutions cannot be construed as conversion without evidence of inducement or force.
• In this case, there is no evidence of force or material inducements, and the girls maintained before arrest that they and their parents consented to the journey.
• Recent High Court judgments have set a precedent that only the person allegedly converted, or their close relatives, can legally lodge a complaint—thus, the FIRs based on complaints by third-party activists (such as Bajrang Dal) are often quashed for lack of standing.

The Situation of the Sisters: Bail and Justice

• If the above facts stand in court (that the girls were adults, willing, and not coerced or trafficked), legal experts contend the sisters would likely have secured bail regardless, as no case for either crime would sustain in court. Thus, even if bail was delayed due to public pressure and administrative overreach, their continued detention may not reflect justice being served, but rather procedural and political delay.
• However, the process itself has exacted a toll: Both the sisters and the girls allege they were harassed, threatened, and humiliated by Bajrang Dal activists, with no FIRs registered against those responsible for the intimidation and public humiliation. Videos have surfaced showing public shaming, but local police have not taken action against Bajrang Dal activists despite repeated complaints and media outcry.

Will Bajrang Dal Activists Be Arrested?

• At present, there is no sign that Bajrang Dal members involved in the harassment will be arrested. Despite eyewitness and victim testimonies, police inaction has been conspicuous.
• Rights groups and opposition leaders have called for action against alleged vigilante intimidation and mob justice, but as of now, authorities have only acted against the sisters and not the mob leaders.

The trafficking and conversion charges, based on the available facts, are unlikely to hold unless new evidence emerges. This means the sisters may have received bail irrespective of other factors. Yet, the lack of accountability for those who subjected the women to mob intimidation and the absence of action against such vigilante practices raise major concerns about procedural justice. For now, the sisters and their supporters remain without closure, as their ordeal seems less about law and more about social and political pressures.