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