This article has been written by Ms. Damini Chauhan, a student of BBA.LLB (Hons), from United world school of law, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar. This author is a 5th year law student.

INTRODUCTION

Indian law forbids slavery and any other practise that violates a person’s freedom and dignity. However, some people still think they are better than other people. As a result, millions of women and children fall prey to human trafficking and are compelled to work against their will for low wages. According to the Global Slavery Index, 18.3 million individuals in India were living in modern slavery in 2016. According to the 2018 Global Slavery Survey report, child labour and forced sexual exploitation have increased in the nation.

Human dignity is guaranteed by the right against exploitation, which is protected under Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution. Enhancing the freedom and human dignity that the Indian Constitution was established on.

PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS AND FORCED LABOUR

The prohibition on forced labour and other related forms of human trafficking is found in Clause 1 of Article 23. Additionally, it declares that any violation of this clause would result in legal consequences. It expressly forbids:

• Human trafficking is the term used to describe the buying and selling of people, typically for the purposes of forced labour, forced prostitution, or sexual enslavement.
• Begar: This is a type of forced labour, which is when someone is made to work for free.
• Various types of forced labour: This includes other kinds of forced labour when the worker receives less pay than the minimum wage. This includes forced labour such as bonded labour, where a person is made to work in exchange for meagre pay, forced labour in jail, when inmates who have been sentenced to hard labour are made to work for nothing, etc.

As a result, Article 23 has a very broad reach because it ensures that no one is coerced into doing anything. For example, it prohibits forcing a landless, underpaid labourer to do gratuitous services. A woman or kid cannot be forced into prostitution, either.

• Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC1943

A group established for the purpose of defending democratic rights filed the petition in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India. It made an effort to look into the working conditions of the workers involved in different Asiad projects. Public interest litigation was started when this inquiry revealed that several labour laws were being broken. Issues such labourers not receiving the minimum wage as specified in the Minimum Wages Act of 1948 and unequal income distribution between men and women were brought up in the case.

In this case, the Supreme Court gave its interpretation of article 23’s scope. According to the Court, the term “force” in this article has a fairly broad definition. Physical force, legal force, and other economic pressures that compel someone to perform labour for less than the minimum wage are all included in this definition. As a result, it would be considered forced labour if someone is obliged to work for less than the minimum wage just because they are poor, destitute, or hungry.

The Court further explained what “all analogous forms of compelled labour” in article 23 of the Indian Constitution meant. All sorts of forced labour, not just beggar work, are forbidden, it was stated. Accordingly, it would not matter whether a person received compensation or not as long as he was forced to perform labour against his choice.

• Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328

In the Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan case, the state hired numerous employees to build a road as a means of relieving the locals’ drought and resource shortage problems. The Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act of 1964 applied to their employment. The Exemption Act permitted paying workers less than the minimum wage for the task they performed.

According to the court, the 1964 Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act is unconstitutional since it pertains to the minimum wage act’s exclusion. This means that regardless of whether a person is impacted by drought or scarcity, the state must pay them the minimum wage for whatever famine relief activity they perform. This is necessary to ensure that the state does not exploit the defenceless state in which those stricken by starvation, drought, etc. find themselves and to support the principle that they must be adequately compensated for the labour they put forth effort and sweat into, which helps the state.

• Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155

According to the ruling in the case of Deena @ Deena Dayal Etc. v. Union of India and Others, it is considered forced labour and a violation of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution if a prisoner is made to perform labour without being paid for it. This is so that the inmates might be paid fairly for the labour they performed.

• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802

Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the petitioner, is a group fighting to eradicate the abhorrent practise of bonded labour. Bandhua Mukti Morcha addressed a letter to Justice Bhagwati in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, and the court considered it as a public interest litigation. The letter detailed its findings from a survey it had undertaken of a few stone quarries in the Faridabad region, which revealed that many of the workers there were forced labourers and that many of them were working in “inhuman and inhumane conditions.”

The Court established standards for identifying bound labourers and stipulated that it is the responsibility of the state government to locate, free, and rehabilitate bonded labourers. It was decided that anyone who works as bonded labour is denied their freedom. Such a person is reduced to slavery, has all of his employment freedom taken away from him, and is subjected to forced labour. Additionally, it was decided that anytime it is established that a worker is performing forced labour, the Court would assume that he is doing so in exchange for money and is, as a result, performing bonded labour. The employer and the state government may only refute this presumption if sufficient proof is offered to do so.

• Kahason Tangkhul v. Simtri Shaili, AIR 1961 Manipur

Before the country gained its independence, Manipur had a custom requiring every household to provide the village headman, or khullakpa, one day’s free labour. This practise was maintained in the case of Miksha v. State of Manipur as a custom that cannot be considered to be forced labour. The appellant refused, nonetheless, to even one day of free labour. As a result, the respondent came forward and initiated legal action against the appellant, claiming that the appellant continued to disregard the tradition despite the court’s orders for it to be observed.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and determined that this common practise violated Article 23 of the Constitution in the case of Roweina Kahaosan Tangkhul v. Ruiweinao Simirei Shailei Khullapka. According to the report, when a Khullakpa insists on upholding the tradition, the villagers are forced to perform the work without payment.

• State v. Banwari, AIR 1951 All. 615

In the case of State v. Banwari and Ors., the appellants, who included 5 barbers and 2 dhobis, contested their convictions under Sections 3 and 6 of the U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947.

No one may refuse to perform any service for another person on the grounds that he or she is a member of a scheduled caste, according to Section 3 of the act. As long as the service is rendered in the normal course of business. According to the appellants, this Section violated Article 23 of the Constitution. However, the Court dissented, ruling that prohibiting someone from refusing service to someone only because they are a scheduled case does not equivalent to beggar.

COMPULSORY SERVICE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES

The Constitution’s Article 23, Clause 2 specifies that it does not prohibit the state from imposing mandatory services for public interests. Additionally, it stipulates that the state must not discriminate in any way in carrying out this policy on the basis of race, religion, caste, or any combination of these.

Thus, despite the fact that Article 23 forbids any form of forced labour, the state is nonetheless allowed to use conscription (impose compulsory services upon people for public purposes). The state must be careful not to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, caste, or class when requiring people to use its services.

• Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah, AIR 1958 Cal. 365 

A notification designating the petitioner as a special police officer for a period of three months was served to him in the matter of Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah. He claimed that doing so amounted to “forced labour,” which was a violation of his fundamental rights.

The Court dismissed his appeal and ruled that conscription for police services cannot be viewed as either of the following:

(i) who begs; or

(ii) engage in human trafficking; or

(iii) any kind of equivalent forced labour.

As a result, Article 23 is not violated by the notification that is made to designate a person as a special police officer.

PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES, ETC

The possibility for children to have a typical childhood is taken away from them by the cruel practise of child labour. It impedes children’s development and mental health. They are also prevented from experiencing a typical, carefree childhood.

According to Article 39 of the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the state to prevent abuse of children while they are still very young and to prevent them from being forced into occupations that are not physically or intellectually suited to their age and strength.

According to Article 24, children under the age of fourteen are prohibited from working in factories or undertaking other dangerous jobs.

Thus, it forbids the employment of kids under the age of 14 in risky or harmful settings that could weaken their mental and physical health.

• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, Shri MC Mehta focused to invoking Article 32, allowing the Court to investigate the violation of children’s fundamental rights protected by Article 24. Sivakasi was seen as a serious offender for using so many children as labourers. It worked on the production line for fireworks and matches. The Court stated that this was a risky enterprise. Therefore, it is against the law to engage anyone in this field under the age of 14.

The Court maintained that children under the age of fourteen must not be engaged in any dangerous industries and that it is important to ensure that all children receive an education up until the age of 14. The court also took into account Article 39(e), which states that children should not be mistreated while still young and should have opportunities to grow up in a healthy way. As a result, the Court decided that Sivakasi, the employer, must compensate children who were employed in violation of the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, with a sum of Rs. 20,000.

CONCLUSION

The weak have long been taken advantage of by the stronger. The practise of exploitation is also prevalent to a considerable extent in India. The “untouchables” were being taken advantage of by the upper castes and wealthier strata in many different parts of the nation. For instance, many migrants from Bangladesh and Nepal are forced to work in India’s diverse industries, such as brick kilns, carpet weaving, embroidery, etc. As a result, employers often use deception and debt bondage to hire them. Such mistreatment needs to end.

Additionally, child labour is a curse for the country. It is a repugnant practise that undermines both the wellbeing and growth of children and the entire country. There are still about 30 million child labourers in India. This is abhorrent, and it is past time to stop this repugnant behaviour and punish those responsible.

REFERENCE

[1] The Constitution of India by P. M. Bakshi

[2] https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/648/9/09_chapter4.pdf 

[3]https://www.childlineindia.org.in/National-Commission-for-the-Protection-of-Child-Rights.htm

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening