By Deeksha Singh
The right against exploitation is a fundamental right that is enshrined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. The objective of the right against exploitation is to protect people from being exploited. This right is contained in Article 23 and Article 24 of the Indian Constitution. The term “exploitation” is a French word which denotes using or treating somebody or something in an unfair and selfish manner for one’s own advantage or profit. Human trafficking , Begging, employment of children in factories and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited under these articles.
Article 23 – Prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour
Article 23(1) prohibits traffic in human beings, beggar and other similar forms of forced labour. This Article declares that any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable under law. Clause (2) however, permits the state to impose compulsory services for public purposes provided that in making so it shall not make any discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, class or any of them.[1]
In People’s Union of Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)[2], it was held that the scope of Article 23 is very wide. It includes all forms of exploitation, whether economic or social. The objective of the right against exploitation is to prevent persons from being reduced to a condition of servitude or from being subjected to physical or economic coercion.
In the case of ‘Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India(1983)[3]’ the Supreme Court ruled that bonded labour was forbidden by Article 23 since it was considered a type of forced labour. The case concerned the mistreatment of labourers in stone quarries located in the Haryana region of Faridabad. The Court ordered the Government to take action to end bonded labour and give the victims rehabilitation.
In another landmark case of Sanjit Roy vs. the State of Rajasthan (1983)[4]: it was held that the state hired certain people who were affected by the famine under Famine Relief Act. However, these people were paid less even below the minimum wages as mentioned under the Act. The court held that it is violative of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. The state cannot take advantage of such people who are helpless in the name of helping them.
Article 24 – Prohibition of child labour
Article 24 states, “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.” This Article prohibits the employment of children under 14 years of age in hazardous industries, factories, or mines, without any exceptions. However, it does allow the employment of children in non-hazardous work.[5]
In case of M.C Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)[6], a PIL was filed for the children working in firecracker factories. The court held that it is violative of the right against exploitation. Children shall not be involved in any hazardous activities. The court ordered the state to make strict guidelines for the protection of children against exploitation. The Court suggested several measures to address this issue, including the abolition of piece-rate wages, the establishment of a National Commission for children's welfare to develop a phased scheme for the abolition of child labour, and the imposition of compensation on offending employers for every child employed in violation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The Court reasoned that child labour is a widespread issue across India, attributed to extreme poverty, lack of gainful employment opportunities, and low living standards. It emphasized India's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which extends protection to children's civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian rights. The Court acknowledged the International Labour Organisation's role in the gradual elimination of child labour and the protection of children from industrial exploitation.
Conclusion
It is an undisputed fact that child labour is India’s one of the biggest concern, but at the same time efforts made and the steps taken by the government cannot be undermined. Although child labour exists across the nation to a larger extent, it has been significantly reduced over the past two decades due to the potential measures and schemes implemented by various states and the reduction is evident through the census data. The growing awareness among the people is also one of the reasons for the reduction in child labour. In MC Mehta vs State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of collaboration between government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the judiciary in addressing systemic issues like child labour. The establishment of rehabilitation programs, emphasis on education, and provision of alternative employment for families of child labourers are significant steps towards breaking the cycle of poverty and exploitation. The case continues to influence policies and initiatives aimed at protecting children's rights. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges and the need for vigilance and proactive measures to ensure that no child is subjected to exploitation and hazardous work conditions.
I feel that if one’s life were subject and at the whim of another individual, the concept of equality before law, fair law rights, and any other basic right in the matter will have little sense. Whilst this constitutional right guarantees the security of the government’s people , India also has a long way to go towards zero oppression.
Submission by Deeksha Singh, LL.M. (Criminal Law, 2nd year ) , Jaipur School of Law, MVGU
[1] The Constitution of India , Article 23
[2] People's Union For Democratic Rights ... vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982
[5] The Constitution of India, Article 24
[6] M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others (SC 1996)
Excellent expression and elaboration.