subject: constitutional law-ii topic: right against
Post on 26-Jan-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Subject: Constitutional Law-II
Topic: Right against Exploitation-Articles 23 &24, Unit-IV(B)
B.A.LL.B-4th sem
Subject Teacher: Akhlaqul Azam
Right against Exploitation-Articles 23 &24
The constitution has established a democratic welfare state based on the ideals of equality,
liberty and justice to those people who had been oppressed from centuries and deprived from
power. The ideals enshrined in the constitution could not become reality to them despite of the
fact that they have been guaranteed as Fundamental rights. Under this provision every individual
has been guaranteed a right against exploitation thereby prohibiting exploitation in any form. The
constitution of India under Art 23 and 24 expressly mentions its commitment to save the humans
being from the scourge of exploitation.
The Right against exploitation enshrined in Article 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution
guarantees human dignity and protect people from any such exploitation. Thus, upholding the
principles of human dignity and liberty upon which the Indian Constitution is based. It prohibits
traffic in human being and begar and similar forms of forced labour. At the time of the adoption
of the constitution there was hardly anything like slavery or widespread forced labour in any part
of India. The national movement has been the rallying force against such practice. However,
there were areas where such practice was prevalent. The untouchables were exploited by richer
and higher classes. In pre-independence days there existed a practice under which labourers who
worked for a particular landlord could not leave him to find employment anywhere without his
permission. Very often this restriction was so severe and labourers dependence on the master
was so absolute that he was just a slave in reality. The local laws had supported such practices.
Article 23 – Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour
2
Article 23(1): Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are
prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance
with the law.
Article 23(2): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service
for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on
grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
Clause 1 of Article 23 prohibits the trafficking of human beings, begar any similar form of
forced labour. It also states that any contravention of this provision is punishable by the law. It
explicitly prohibits:
Human Trafficking: This refers to the sale and purchase of human beings mostly for the
purpose of sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced labour.
Begar: This is a form of forced labour which refers to forcing a person to work for no
remuneration.
Other forms of forced labour: This includes other forms of forced labour in which the
person works for a wage less than the minimum wage. This includes bonded labour
wherein a person is forced to work to pay off his debt for inadequate remuneration, prison
labour wherein prisoners sent in for rigorous imprisonment are forced to work without
even minimum remuneration etc.
Hence, Article 23 has a very wide scope by ensuring that a person is not forced to do anything
involuntarily. For instance, It forbids a land-owner to force a landless, poor labourer to render
free services. It also forbids forcing a woman or child into prostitution.
Exploitation means misuse of services of others with the help of force. Begar means involuntary
work without payment. In India, services of backward communities and weaker sections of the
society were used without any payment; this was known as practice of begar. Under Art. 23, any
form of exploitation is forbidden. One shall not be forced to provide labour or services against
his will even if remuneration is paid. If remuneration is less than minimum wages, it also
amounts to forced labour under Art. 23. Thus, the system of ‘bonded labour’ (debt bondage i.e.
service arising out of loan/debt/advance) is unconstitutional. Equally, forcing helpless women
3
into prostitution is a crime. The intention of the Constitution is that whatever a person does must
be voluntary. There must not be any element of coercion involved behind a woman or man’s
action. Traffic in human beings means selling and buying men and women like goods for
immoral and other purposes and generally involves traffic of women and children. Traffic in
human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any
contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. This
provision is similar to the 13th amendment of the American Constitution which abolished
slavery in USA. While, our Constitution does not explicitly forbid slavery, the scope of Article
23 has been made wider by using the term ‘traffic in human beings’ and ‘forced labour’. Thus, it
not only prohibits slavery but also any sort of traffic in women, children or crippled for immoral
purposes.
Article 23 protects the individual not only against the State but also private citizens. It imposes a
positive obligation on the State to take steps to abolish evils of “traffic in human beings” and
begar and other similar forms of forced labour wherever they are found. Under Article 35 of the
Constitution, the Parliament is authorized to make laws for punishing acts prohibited by this
Article. In pursuance of this Article, the Parliament has passed the Suppression of Immoral
Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for punishing acts which result in traffic in human
beings. Similarly, Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, prohibits the system of bonded
labour. Clause (2) of the Article 22, however, permits the State to impose compulsory services
for public purposes. Thus, conscription (compulsory enlistment for state service, typically into
the armed forces) is not unconstitutional. But in compelling people to render national service, the
state must not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
Article 23 is clearly designed to protect the individual not only against the state but also against
other private citizens. Art. 23 is not limited in its application against the state but it prohibits “
Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour” practised by anyone
else. The sweep of Art. 23 is wide and unlimited and it strikes at “traffic in human beings and
begar and other similar forms of forced labour” wherever they are found. The reason for enacting
this provision in the chapter on Fundamental Right is to be found in the socio-economic
condition of the people at the time when the Constitution came to be enacted. The constitution
makers, when they set out to frame the Constitution, found that they had the enormous task
4
before them of changing the socio-economic structure of the country and bringing about socio-
economic regeneration with a view to reaching social and economic justice to the common man .
Large masses of people, bled white by well nigh to centuries of foreign rule, were living in abject
poverty and destitution, with ignorance and illiteracy accentuating their helplessness and despair.
The society had degenerated into a status-oriented hierarchical society with little respect for the
dignity of the individual who was in the lower rungs of the social ladder or in an economically
impoverished condition. The political revolution was completed and it had. succeeded in
bringing freedom to the country but freedom was not an end in itself; it was only a means to an
end, the end being the raising of the people to higher levels of achievement and bringing about
their total advancement and welfare.
Cases
In the case of State through Gokul Chand v Banwari and Ors.,(1951) the appellants including 5
barbers and 2 dhobis contested against Section 3 and Section 6 of U. P. Removal of Social
Disabilities Act, 1947, under which they were convicted.
Section 3 of the act laid down that no person can refuse to render any service to another person
on the ground that he belongs to a scheduled caste. Provided that such service lies in the ordinary
course of business. The appellants contested that this Section was violative article 23 of the
Constitution. But the Court disagreed and held that making it illegal for a person to refuse
service to some person just because that person belongs to scheduled cases does not equate to
begar.
In Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1959)," the Sarpanch of the village ordered every household to
send one man, along with a spade and an iron pan, to render free service for the embankment of
the village tank. The Rajasthan High Court held the order of the Sarpanch clearly against Article
23(1) which forbade begar.
In Suraj Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh(1960), it was held that non-payment of salary to a
teacher for unsatisfactory work offended against the spirit of Article 23 and amounted to begar.
The Rajasthan High Court held that the teacher, who was holding a civil post under the
Government could be punished by no punishment except that which could be awarded to him
5
under the Madhya Bharat Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956,
subject to which he was holding the post.
Before independence, there was a tradition in Manipur wherein each of the house-holders had to
offer one day’s free labour to the headman or khullakpa of the village. In the case Miksha v State
of Manipur (1961), this practice was upheld as a custom which cannot be deemed to amount to
forced labour. However, the appellant disagreed to give one day’s free labour. Consequently,
respondent came forward and filed a suit against the appellant stating that the appellant
continued to ignore the custom even after the court had given directions for it to be followed.
In the case of Roweina Kahaosan Tangkhul v Ruiweinao Simirei Shailei Khullapka, the Court,
however, allowed the appeal and held this customary practice to be violative of Article 23 of the
Constitution. It said that when a Khullakpa insists on carrying on the custom, it led to forced
labour as the villagers had to do it without receiving wages for it.
the case of D. B. M. Patnaik v. State of A. P.(1974) the court held that a inmate does not
surrender his citizenship nor does he lose his civil rights, except such rights as freedom of
movement, which are necessarily lost because of the very fact of imprisonment. The
consequence is that to deny a prisoner reasonable wages in return for his work will be to violate
the mandate in Article 23(1) of the Constitution. Consequently the State could be directed not to
deny such reasonable wages to the prisoners from whom the State takes work in its prisons.
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) also known as Asiad Workers
Case
In this case the petitioner was an organisation formed for the protection of democratic rights. It
undertook efforts to investigate the conditions under which the workmen employed in various
Asiad projects were working. This investigation found out that various labour laws were being
violated and consequently public interest litigation was initiated. In the case issues like labourers
not given the minimum remuneration as mentioned in the minimum wages act, 1948 and unequal
income distribution among men and women were highlighted.
The Supreme Court interpreted the scope of article 23 in the case. The Court held that the word
force within this article has a very wide meaning. It includes physical force, legal force and other
6
economic factors which force a person to provide labour at a wage less than the minimum wage.
Hence, if a person is forced to provide labour for less than the minimum wage, just because of
poverty, want, destitution or hunger, it would be accounted for as forced labour.
The Court also clarified the meaning of “all similar forms of forced labour” as mentioned in
article 23 of the Constitution of India. It said that not only begar, but all forms of forced labour
are prohibited. This means that it would not matter if a person is given remuneration or not as
long as he is forced to supply labour against his will.
Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan,(1983)
In this case the state employed a large number of workers for the construction of a road to
provide them relief from drought and scarcity conditions prevailing in their area. Their
employment fell under the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees ( Exemption from Labour
Laws) Act, 1964. The people employed for the work were paid less than the minimum wage,
which was allowed in the Exemption Act.
The Court held that the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour
Laws) Act, 1964 is Constitutionally invalid as to the exclusion of the minimum wages act. This
means that minimum wage must be paid to all the people employed by the state for any famine
relief work, regardless of whether the person is affected by drought or scarcity or not. This is
essential so that the state does not take advantage of the helpless condition of the people affected
by famine, drought etc and upholds that they must be paid fairly for the work into which they put
in effort and sweat, and which provides benefits to the state.
In the case of Deena @ Deena Dayal Etc. v Union of India And Others (1983), it was held that if
a prisoner is forced to do labour without giving him any remuneration, it is deemed to be forced
labour and is violative of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. This is because the prisoners are
entitled to receive reasonable wages for the labour they did.
In Neeraja Choudhary v. State of M.P(1983) the court reasserted its stand in the following word
same view that isunkind to give benefit of the social welfare legislation through the cumbersome
process of litigation involving process of trial and procedure of recording evidence. Justice
Bhagwati further observed that whenever it is revealed that a labourer is providing forced labour,
7
there will be presumption in the Court that he is required to do so in consideration of an advance
received by him and is, therefore, fall with in the purview bonded labourer. Unless the employer
or the government rebuts this presumption, the court shall presume that the labourer is a bonded
labourer entitled to the benefit of a provision of the Act. The court has, issued direction to the
State government to include in the vigilance committee representatives of Social Action for
identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourer. It also made a number of
suggestions and recommendations for improving the existing state of affairs. One such
suggestion related to their reorganization and activation of vigilance committees.
In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,(1984) the organisation sent a letter to
Justice Bhagwati and the Court treated it as a Public Interest Litigation. The letter contained its
observations based on a survey it conducted of some stone quarries in the Faridabad district
where it was found that these contained a large number of workers working in “inhuman and
intolerable conditions”, and many of them were forced labourers.
The Court laid down guidelines for determination of bonded labourers and also provided that it is
the duty of the state government to identify, release and rehabilitate the bonded labourers. It was
held that any person who is employed as a bonded labour is deprived of his liberty. Such a
person becomes a slave and his freedom in the matter of employment is completely taken away
and forced labour is thrust upon him. It was also held that whenever it is shown that a worker is
engaged in forced labour, the Court would presume he is doing so in consideration of some
economic consideration and is, therefore, a bonded labour. This presumption can only be
rebutted against by the employer and the state government if satisfactory evidence is provided
for the same.
In another important case of Gurdev Singh v. State Himachal Pradesh(1992), the court said that
Article 23 of the Constitution forbids „forced Labour‟ and mandated that any breach of such
prevention shall be an offence liable to be punished in accordance with law. The Court observed
that all the inmates of different class in all the jails in the State are entitled to be paid reasonable
wages for the work they are called upon to do in the jails and outside the jails. These wages are
left to be decided by the State Government within a reasonable period i.e. one year from the date
of decision of these cases. However, the prisoners will be paid the minimum wages as notified by
8
the State Government from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 from the date of
filing of these petitions in this Court. These wages will be worked out within a period of three
months from today and deposited in the account of each prisoner.
In State of UP vs. Madhav Prasad Sharama (2011) it was held that denial salary, on the ground
of "no work no pay" cannot be treated as a penalty and therefore it would not be "begar" within
the meaning of Article 23.
In Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo,(2014) the 5th respondent had
held the post of the CEO in the appellant concern for some time, when he was removed from the
said post by issue of quo warranto. A further order was served to him for the recovery of
remuneration he had drawn while holding the office, till he was removed therefrom.
Holding that the recovery of salary would amount to deprivation of payment while the incumbent
was holding the post and had worked. Denial of pay for the service rendered was held to be
tantamount to forced labour which was impermissible, the Court quashed the order of recovery
of salary as amounting to forced labour prohibited by Article 23.
Compulsory service for public purposes
Article 23, clause 2 of the Constitution states that this article does not prevent the state to impose
compulsory services for public purposes. It also states that while doing this, the state must not
make any discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, class or any of them.
Hence, though article 23 disallow any form of forced labour, it permits the state to engage in
conscription (impose compulsory services upon people for public purposes). However, while
imposing services upon people for state services the state must take care to not discriminate on
grounds of religion, race, caste or class.
In the case of Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah (1958), the petitioner was served with a notice
appointing him as a special police officer for a period of three months. He complained that this
violated his fundamental right as it results in “forced labour”
The Court disregarded his appeal and held that conscription for services of police cannot be
considered as either:
9
(i) beggar; or
(ii) traffic in human beings; or
(iii) any similar form of forced labour.
Hence, the notice given for the appointment of a person as a special police officer is not in
prohibition to Article 23.
In Acharaj Singh v. State of Bihar(1967), it has been held that to compel a cultivator to bring
food grains to the Government godown without remuneration for such labour, in a scheme for
procurement of food grains as an essential commodity for the community, there shall be no
contravention of Article 23 of the Constitution because the compulsory service is for "public
purpose".
In DevendraNath Gupta v. State of M.P(1983) the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the
service required to be rendered by the teachers towards educational survey, family planning,
preparation of voters list, general elections, etc. were for „public purpose‟ and therefore even if
no compensation was paid, that did not contravene Article 23.
Child Labour
Article 24 – Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc
Article 24 says that “No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any
factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”
Other Constitutional Provisions on Child Labour
Article 21 A: Right to Education The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all
children of the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State, by law, may determine.
Article 39: The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing:- (e) that the health
and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that
citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or
strength.
10
This article mainly refers to the abolition of child labour. Employing children below the age of
fourteen years in dangerous factories which may cause them physical as well as long term mental
harm is strictly prohibited. It is an integral moral value of the constitution that safeguards the
rights of innocent young children in our country. The parliament has even passed strict laws that
incriminate the employers who violate this article and the laws that are based on this. The
objective of these provisions are to ensure that the children should develop in a better
environment and should also be educated.
Laws against Child Labour
The Factories Act, 1948
This was the first act passed after independence to set a minimum age limit for the employment
of children in factories. The Act set a minimum age of 14 years. In 1954, this Act was amended
to provide that children below the age of 17 could not be employed at night.
The Mines Act of 1952
This Act prohibits the employment of people under the age of 18 years in mines.
The Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
The act defines a child as any person who has not completed his fourteenth year of age. Part II of
the act prohibits children from working in any occupation listed in Part A of the Schedule; for
example: Catering at railway establishments, construction work on the railway or anywhere near
the tracks, plastics factories, automobile garages, etc. The act also prohibits children from
working in places where certain processes are being undertaken, as listed in Part B of the
Schedule; for example: beedi making, tanning, soap manufacture, brick kilns and roof tiles units,
etc. These provisions do not apply to a workshop where the occupier is working with the help of
his family or in a government recognised or aided school.
The act calls for the establishment of a Child Labour Technical Advisory Committee
(CLTAC)who is responsible for advising the government about additions to the Schedule lists.
Part III of the act outlines the conditions in which children may work in occupations/processes
not listed in the schedule. The number of hours of a particular kind of establishment of class of
11
establishments is to be set and no child can work for more than those many hours in that
particular establishment. Children are not permitted to work for more than three hour stretches
and must receive an hour break after the three hours. Children are not permitted to work for more
than six hour stretches including their break interval and can not work between the hours of 7
p.m. and 8 a.m. No child is allowed to work overtime or work in more than one place in a given
day. A child must receive a holiday from work every week. The employer of the child is required
to send a notification to an inspector about a child working in their establishment and keep a
register of all children being employed for inspection.
If there is a dispute as to the age of the child, the inspector can submit the child for a medical
exam to determine his/her age when a birth certificate is not available. Notices about prohibition
of certain child labour and penalties should be posted in every railway station, port authority and
workshop/establishment.
The health conditions of work being undertaken by children shall be set for each particular kind
of establishment of class of establishments by the appropriate government. The rules may cover
topics such as cleanliness, light, disposal of waste and effluents, drinking water, bathrooms,
protection of eyes, maintenance and safety of buildings, etc.
Section IV of the act outlines various remaining aspects such as Penalties. The penalty of
allowing a child to work in occupations/ processes outlined in the schedule which are prohibited
is a minimum of 3 months prison time and/or a minimum of Rs. 10,000 in fines. Second time
offenders are subject to jail time of minimum six months. Failure to notify an inspector, keep a
register, post a sign or any other requirement is punishable by simple imprisonment and/or a fine
up to Rs. 10,000. Offenders can only be tried in courts higher than a magistrate or metropolitan
magistrate of the first class. Courts also have the authority to appoint people to be inspectors
under this act.
Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016
Government has enacted the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016
which came into force w.e.f. 1.9.2016. The Amendment Act completely prohibits the
employment of children below 14 years. The amendment also prohibits the employment of
adolescents in the age group of 14 to 18 years in hazardous occupations and processes and
12
regulates their working conditions where they are not prohibited. The amendment also provides
stricter punishment for employers for violation of the Act and making the offence of employing
any child or adolescent in contravention of the Act by an employer as cognizable.
In order to achieve effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act, the amendment empowers
the appropriate Government to confer such powers and impose such duties on a District
Magistrate as may be necessary. Further, the State Action Plan has been circulated to all the
States/UTs for ensuring effective implementation of the Act.
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2017
Government of India has notified the amendment in the Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Central Rules after extensive consultation with the stakeholders. The Rules provide
broad and specific framework for prevention, prohibition, rescue and rehabilitation of child and
adolescent workers. It also clarifies on issues related with help in family and family enterprises
and definition of family with respect to child, specific provisions have been incorporated in rules.
Further, it also provides for safeguards of artists which have been permitted to work under the
Act, in terms of hours of work and working conditions. The rules provide for specific provisions
incorporating duties and responsibilities of enforcement agencies in order to ensure effective
implementation and compliance of the provisions of the Act.
In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1983), the petitioner
observed the conditions in which the workers employed in various Asiad projects were working.
It was observed that children under the age of fourteen had been employed. It was however
contended that such employment was not against the Employment of Children Act, 1938 since
the act did not list the construction industry as a hazardous industry.
The Court held that the construction work falls in the field of hazardous employment. Thus,
children under the age of fourteen must not be employed in the construction work even though it
has not been mentioned explicitly under the Employment of Children Act 1938. The Court also
advised the state government to amend the schedule and change the omission to include the
construction industry into the list of hazardous industries.
13
In Rajangam, Secretary, District Beedi Workers Union v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (1992)
The Supreme Court observed that tobacco manufacturing was certainly an unsafe occupation to
the health of children. As far as possible the children in this avocation should be banned. The
employment of child labour in this industry should be closed without delay or it can be dealt in a
phased manner which is to be decided by the State Government but the period should not be
exceeding three years.
In labourers working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
others(1994)the Apex Court directed that whenever the Central Government commences a
construction project which is likely to last for a substantial phase of time, it should ensure that
children of construction workers who are living at or near the project site are given amenities for
schooling. The Court further lays down that this may be done either by the Central Government
itself, or if the Central Government entrusts the project work or any part thereof to a contractor,
necessary provision to this effect may be made in the contract with the contractor.
In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu(1997), Shri MC Mehta undertook to
invoke Article 32, enabling the Court to look into the violation of fundamental rights of children
guaranteed to them under Article 24. Sivakasi was considered as a big offender who was
employing many child labourers. It was engaged in the manufacturing process of matches and
fireworks. This, the Court observed, qualified as a hazardous industry. Thus employing children
under the age of 14 years in this industry is prohibited.
The Court reaffirmed that children below the age of fourteen must not be employed in any
hazardous industry and it must be seen that all children are given education till the age of 14
years. The Court also considered Article 39(e) which says that the tender age of children must
not be abused and they must be given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner. In light of
this, the Court held that the employer Sivakasi must pay a compensation of Rs. 20000 for
employing children in contravention to Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
The Supreme Court delivered following directions:
In fulfillment of the legislative intention behind the enactment of the Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, every offending employer must be asked to pay
14
compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- for every child employed in contravention of the
provisions of the Act.
As a large number of working children are engaged in such occupations, asking the
respective State government to assure alternative employment to an adult would strain the
resources of the states. As such, where it is not possible to provide a job to an adult
member of the family, the government concerned should, as its contribution/grant of
Rs.5000/- per child in the child labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund.
A survey should be conducted of the type of child labour under issue which should be
completed within six months.
In case where alternative employment cannot be made available the parent/guardian of
the concerned child should be paid the income earned as interest on the corpus of
Rs.25,000/- for each child every month. The employment given or payment made would
cease to be operative if the child is not sent to school by the parent/guardian.
On discontinuation of the employment of the child, free education should be assured in a
suitable institution with a view to making him a better citizen.
In another significant judgment given by the Apex Court on the basis of PIL Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India and others (1997) , a number of guidelines on the recognition release
and rehabilitation of child labour has also been given. The Court, inter-alia, directed the
Government of India to organize a meeting with the State Government to come up with the
principles/policies for progressive elimination of employment of children below 14 years in all
employments consistent with the design laid down in Civil Writ Petition No.465/86. These
guidelines were given by the Court in the background of employment of children in the Carpet
Industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In this case the Court issued the following directions to
the Government of Uttar Pradesh:
Examine the situation of child emoployment.
Welfare directions to be issued which results into the total exclusion of child below 14
years of age from any kind of employment.
Provides facilities for education, health, hygiene, healthy food etc.
15
In another important case Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India,(2006) in this case the
Supreme Court of India has taken up the issues of children working in the circus and instructed
the government to prohibit the employment of children in the circus business. Until recently, the
form of entertainment was exempt from the laws which state that no child under the age of 14
can be placed into labor. However, an amendment passed to bring circuses in line with other
industries has been ignored by employers and now the government has been encouraged to
impose a complete ban. We plan to deal with the problem of children's exploitation
systematically. In this order we are limiting our directions regarding children working in the
Indian Circuses:
Put into practice the fundamental right of the children under Article 21A is very
important and the Central Government must issue suitable notifications prohibiting the
employment of children in circuses within two months from today.
The respondents are aimed to conduct synchronized raids in all the circuses to release the
children and verify the contravention of fundamental rights of the children. The salvaged
children are to be kept in the Care and Protective Homes till they achieve the age of 18
years.
The respondents are also directed to speak to the parents of the children and in case they
are ready to take their children back to their homes, they may be directed to do so after
appropriate authentication.
The respondents are directed to frame suitable design of rehabilitation of salvaged
children from circuses.
In another case Bachpan Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India(2009) the Supreme Court observed
directed that in the light of infrastructural constraint, the labour Department, Delhi has to
commence implementing the Delhi Action Plan by accommodating for the time being about 500
children every month. The Court observed that the Delhi Action Plan lays down a detailed
procedure for interim care and protection of the rescued children to be followed by Labour
Department as prepared by the National Commission with the modifications mentioned in the
judgment and we further direct all the authorities concerned to immediately implement the same.
Article 23 and 24 under the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right against exploitation.
The right is wider in application as available to every person citizen or non-citizen and against
16
State as well as individuals also. To enforce these Articles Child Labour (Prohibition and
Regulation) Act, 1986 and Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 was enacted.
Probable Questions
1. Explain in detail the constitutional protection against exploitation
2. “Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are
prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in
accordance with the law”. Comment. Refer to decided cases
3. Explain the scope and ambit of Article 23 of Constitution
4. “Child Labour is Curse for the Society”. Comment
5. Discuss in detail the Constitutional Protection against Child Labour
top related