Rights Against Exploitation in India
Uploaded by
Biswaraj raulRights Against Exploitation in India
Uploaded by
Biswaraj raulCommon questions
Powered by AIArticles 23 and 24 address various dimensions of exploitation by prohibiting trafficking, forced labor, and child labor. Article 23 prevents economic and physical exploitation by prohibiting trafficking and forced labor, while Article 24 focuses on preventing child exploitation in hazardous working conditions. Together, they ensure protection against exploitation across age groups and contexts, supporting broader human rights objectives by safeguarding individuals from economic and physical coercion and their resultant harms .
The Indian legal system, through the exception in Article 23(2), permits mandatory public service without violating the broader prohibition on forced labor to accommodate societal needs like national defense and public utilities. Although Article 24 strictly prohibits child labor, the legal system aims to balance economic realities with protective measures like rehabilitation funds and compensations, advocating for both individual rights and societal growth. Such balances are reflected in judicial interpretations which ensure exploitation protection while recognizing collective societal obligations .
Article 23(2) allows the state to impose compulsory service for public purposes, such as national defense or public utilities, without discrimination based on religion, race, caste, or class. This provision creates an exception to the prohibition against forced labor but aligns with societal and state necessities, balancing individual rights with collective responsibilities. However, the absence of central legislation governing such compulsory service implies limited practical application, thus not undermining the broader right against forced labor while maintaining the constitutional flexibility to meet public needs .
Judicial interpretations have significantly expanded the applicability of Articles 23 and 24 to address modern challenges. The broad interpretation of 'force' under Article 23 by the Supreme Court, including economic coercion, ensures protection against diverse exploitation forms affecting civil liberties. Similarly, Article 24's prohibition against child labor has led to judicial mandates for rehabilitation and safeguarding children's rights against contemporary exploitation challenges. These interpretations underscore the judiciary's role in adapting constitutional protections to evolving socio-economic realities .
Article 23 of the Indian Constitution prohibits trafficking in human beings, forced labor, and 'begar' (a form of forced labor without remuneration). It classifies any violation of these prohibitions as an offense. The Indian Parliament, under Article 35, has the power to legislate punishments for these offenses. Consequently, laws such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, have been enacted to curb such exploitation .
Despite Article 24's prohibition against child labor, implementation challenges persist, including socioeconomic factors driving families to exploit child labor for financial survival. Enforcement issues, inadequate policy framework, and loopholes in child labor laws undermine the effectiveness of Article 24. The need for robust enforcement mechanisms and socio-economic interventions is crucial for meaningful implementation. The landmark case of MC Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu underscores efforts to address these challenges through compensation and rehabilitation measures .
Under the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 23, human trafficking is expressly prohibited. Complementing this constitutional provision, statutory laws such as the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, provide legal mechanisms to combat trafficking. These laws set punitive measures and provide a legal framework to address and prevent trafficking, reinforcing the constitutional mandate against exploitation .
Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in factories, mines, or hazardous employment, complementing the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Articles 39(e) and 39(f), which aim to protect children's health and against economic exploitation. The landmark case of MC Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu, where the Supreme Court directed the establishment of a Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund and compensation for children working in hazardous industries, has significantly influenced the enforcement of Article 24 .
The Supreme Court decision in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 23. The Court observed that the scope of Article 23 is vast, prohibiting not only 'begar' but any form of forced labor. This includes labor compelled by economic circumstances, particularly when people are paid less than the minimum wage. The judgment established that no person shall be forced to provide labor or services against their will, emphasizing that 'force' under Article 23 encompasses not only physical and legal duress but also economic compulsion .
The interpretation of 'force' under Article 23, which includes not only physical and legal coercion but also economic pressures, has significant implications. This broad definition ensures comprehensive protection against exploitation in various disguises, influencing legislative measures such as minimum wage laws and anti-trafficking statutes. Judicially, it empowers courts to address diverse forms of labor exploitation, as exemplified in cases like People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, ensuring redress for victims compelled to work under exploitative conditions .