1

2022

Right against Exploitation

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

[Link] Kumar Name: - Dibyajyoti Sarkar

Suman
Roll No: - 03
Assistant Professor;
Department of Law; Course no.-802
Assam University Subject- Law of Poverty
Silchar. and Development
DATED :- 27/05/2022 Semester: - 8th

.
 2

Title page no.

1. Acknowledgement 3
2. Introduction 4
3. Prohibition of Traffic 5
in Human Beings and
Forced Labour
4. Compulsory service for public 8
purposes

5. Prohibition of employment of 9
children in factories, etc

6. Conclusion 11

7. Bibliography 12
 3

At the outset of my assignment. I, Mr. Dibyajyoti Sarkar

would like to thank Assam University Authority for introduction such
an exciting activities in our syllabus.

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to

my respected teacher [Link] Kumar Suman for giving me a
golden opportunity and also for his valuable guide and support to give
shape to my assignment at its present state.

Dated :- 27/05/2022 Dibyajyoti Sarkar

 4

The Indian laws prohibit slavery and any act which harms the dignity and freedom
of a person. Yet there are people who still view themselves as superior to others.
As a result, many people are forced to do work against their will at cheap rates and
millions of women and children become victims of human trafficking. In 2016,
there were 18.3 million people in modern slavery in India according to the Global
Slavery Index. The 2018 Global slavery survey report stated that there has been a
further addition of forced sexual exploitation and child labour in the country.

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.
 5

Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and

Forced Labour
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.

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India,

AIR 1982 SC1943.
In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 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
 6

that the word force within this article has a very wide meaning. It includes physical
force, legal force and other 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, AIR 1983 SC 328.

=>In the case of Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 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.
Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155.

=>In the case of Deena Dayal Etc. v Union of India And Others, 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.
 7

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

=>The petitioner, Bandhua Mukti Morcha is an organisation waging a battle

against the horrendous system of bonded labour. In the case of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India, 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.
Kahason Tangkhul v. Simtri Shaili, AIR 1961 Manipur

=>Before independence, there was a tradition in Manipur wherein each of the

householders had to offer one day’s free labour to the headman or khullakpa of the
village. In the case Miksha v State of Manipur, 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.

Compulsory service for public purposes

 8

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.

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

=>In the case of Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah, 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:

[Link]; or

2. traffic in human beings; or

3. 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.

Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc

 9

Child labour is an inhumane practice which takes away the opportunity of having a
normal childhood from the children. It hampers their growth and mental well being
of children. It also disables them from having normal fun-filled childhood.

Article 39 of the Constitution states that it is the duty of the state to ensure that the
tender age of children is not abused and that they are not forced by economic
necessity to enter into fields of work where they are forced to provide labour which
is unsuitable to their age and strength

Article 24 states that any child under the age of fourteen years can not be employed
as a worker in any factory or be engaged in any other hazardous employment.

Hence it prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 years in

dangerous or unhealthy conditions which could harm their mental and physical
strength.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India,

AIR 1983 SC 1473
=>In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 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.

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

 10

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, 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.
 11

Conclusion
The stronger have exploited the weak since ancient ages. In India as well the
practice of exploitation is largely present. There are many areas in the country
where “untouchables” were being exploited in several ways by the higher castes
and richer classes. For instance, in many industries in India like brick kilns,Carpet
weaving, embroidery etc, many Bangladeshi and Nepali migrants are being
subjected to forced labour. This is seen as employers recruit them through fraud
and debt bondage. Such exploitation must be eradicated.

Also, Child labour is a bane for the nation. It is a shameful practise which harms
the welfare and development of the children as well as the entire nation. India still
has approximately 30 million child labourers. This is horrifying and It is high time
to eradicate this horrible practice and punish the offenders.
 12

1. Kumar, Nilender, Textbook on Law of Poverty and

Development.

[Link], Poverty and Development. – Upendra Baxi.

[Link] and Poverty in India – Atul Kohli.