Bandhua Mukti v/s Union of India

Author: Ashmit Srivastava

Edited by: Sulesh Choudhary

ABSTRACT

The landmark case Badhua Mukti Morcha v/s. Union of India highlights the crucial and most depraving section of our nation that is the bounded – labour along with the exploitation and the inhumane treatment by the Quarry owners to their labours, collectively the Supreme Court, exercising its power under Article 32 of the Constitution, treated the petition as a writ and appointed a commission to investigate the allegations. The findings of the commission found that the claims of the petitioners, revealing a system of oppression where workers were trapped in a cycle of debt and exploitation. The Court’s judgment was a landmark in Indian legal history. It not only provided relief to the affected workers but also expanded the scope of public interest litigation, empowering NGOs to champion the cause of marginalized sections of society. The case emphasized the State’s responsibility to protect fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. By declaring bonded labour as a violation of human dignity, the Court reinforced the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional values. The case’s legacy extends beyond the immediate relief provided to the quarry workers. It created a precedent for addressing systemic issues through judicial intervention and has inspired subsequent efforts to combat bonded labour and other forms of human exploitation in India.

Keywords (Minimum 5): Bonded labour, Fundamental Rights, Rehabilitation, State Responsibility, Labour Laws.

  1. CASE DETAILS

 

       i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s. Union of India

     ii)            Citation

(1984) 3 SCC 161

   iii)            Judgement Date

16th December 1983.

    iv)            Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

      v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench

3 Bench of Judges.

    vi)            Author / Name of Judges

The Hon’ble

 

1)      Justice P.N. Bhagwati

2)      Justice Ranganath Misra

3)      Justice D.A. Desai

 

  vii)            Legal Provisions Involved

Article – 21, 23, 39(e) and 39(f) of The Constitution of India.

The enactment of “The Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act,1976.”.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The abhorrent practice, where individuals were subjected to forced labour as a means to repay a debt, often intergenerational, was a stark violation of fundamental human rights. The “Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India” case marked a watershed moment in the nation’s struggle against this insidious evil. [1] 

In this case the Court talked about the significance of securing children’s Right to Education, wellbeing, and advancement in guaranteeing India’s advancement as a vote-based system. While perceiving that child labour couldn’t be cancelled promptly due to financial need the court observed that down-to-earth steps could be taken to ensure and advance the rights of children in the destitution strichen and weak populaces of the country. The Bandhua Mukti Morcha, a non-governmental organization, brought this issue to the forefront by writing to the Supreme Court. The Court, recognizing the gravity of the situation, took Suo- moto cognizance and appointed a commission to investigate the matter. The commission’s report painted a harrowing picture of the lives of these bonded labourers, providing the necessary impetus for the Court to intervene.

The court additionally noticed India’s commitments under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Convention on the Rights of the child to give free essential education to all the children in the nation and secure the children against financial abuse.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

  1. The Petitioner wrote a letter to Justice P.N. Bhagwati regarding the workplace and marking conditions of the workmen.
  2. This letter was further taken as a writ Petition under “Article-32 of the Constitution of India” and a commission was made to enquire about the allegations put forth by the petitioner in the posted letter.
  3. The commission proved that the allegations to be right and there was the infringement of the rights of the labourers.
  4. They requested the Supreme Court to issue a writ for proper implementation of the various provisions of the Constitution and statues with a view to end the misery, suffering and helplessness of those labours and release them from the bonded labour.
  5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court treated the said letter as a writ petition and on 26th February 1982 appointed a commission consisting of Mr. Ashok Srivastava & Mr. Askok Panda to enquire further.

Factual Background of the Case

  1. The petitioner Bandhua Mukti Morcha is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) which works for the welfare of the people. While they were conducting a survey and found some stone quarries in Faridabad, Haryana.
  2. The workmen were found in exploitative, harsh & inhumane conditions including :-
  • Long working hours without adequate rest.
  • Minimal or low wages.
  • Lack of basic amenities to the labour like food, shelter, and healthcare.
  • Physical and mental abuse.

 

  1. Quarry owners employed coercive tactics to maintain control over the labourers, including threats, violence, and withholding wages.
  2. The prevalence of the of child labour was also found within these quarries.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. WHETHER the PIL under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was maintainable or not?
  2. WHETHER fundamental rights of labourers are infringed in the current case?

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner (Bandhua Mukti Morcha), representing the victims of bonded labour and presented the compelling the arguments to highlight the plight of these labours and to seek legal redress.

  • Violation of Fundamental Rights:
  • The petitioners argued that the bonded labour constituted a violation of the fundamental rights of citizen guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly:
    • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
    • Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.
  • They emphasized the inhuman conditions under which bonded labourers were forced to live and work, depriving them of their basic human dignity.
  • Systemic Exploitation:
  • The petitioners exposed the systemic nature of bonded labour, highlighting how it was perpetuated by a complex network of intermediaries, creditors, and landowners.
  • They argued that the government’s inaction in addressing this issue had allowed the practice to flourish.
  • Debt Trap:
  • The petitioners explained how bonded labourers were often lured into a cycle of debt through false promises of employment or loans.
  • They detailed the exorbitant interest rates charged and the coercive tactics used to keep labourers trapped in servitude.
  • Lack of Enforcement:
  • The petitioners criticized the government’s failure to effectively enforce anti-bonded labour laws.
  • They pointed out the lack of adequate rehabilitation programs for rescued bonded labourers and the absence of measures to prevent re-trafficking.
  • Role of State Negligence:
  • The petitioners argued that the state had a duty to protect its citizens from exploitation.
  • They accused the government of negligence in failing to address the root causes of bonded labour, such as poverty, illiteracy, and lack of access to credit.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondent, in this case, the Union of India, presented a defense against the allegations made by the petitioners, the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, here are some potential arguments:

KEY ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. Lack of Sufficient substantiation
  • The replier argued that the pleaders failed to give concrete and substantial substantiation to support their claims of wide clicked labour.
  • They also challenged the credibility and trustability of the substantiations and documents presented by the pleaders.
    1. Profitable Constraints
  • They also contend that it faced resource limitations and popular constraints in effectively eradicating clicked labour.
  • Also, they argued that the problem was complex and needed a gradational approach, involving colourful stakeholders.
    1. State Intervention and Being Laws
  • The replier stressed the colourful laws and regulations formerly in place to combat clicked labour, similar as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
  • They refocused out to the government enterprise and programs aimed at delivering and rehabilitating clicked labourers.
    1. Part of Socio- Economic Factors
  • They also argued that poverty, ignorance, and lack of mindfulness were underpinning causes of clicked labour, rather than state negligence.
  • They emphasized the need for a multi-faceted approach involving education, profitable development, and social reforms.

COUNTERACTING THE PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

  • To fight the argument of violation of abecedarian rights, the government argued that it was taking way to apply these rights and that the pleaders’ claims were inflated.
  • To address the issue of systemic exploitation, the replier emphasized the complexity of the problem and the challenges involved in eradicating it fully. • Regarding the debt trap, the government refocused to sweats to regulate moneylenders and give indispensable sources of credit.
  • In response to the lack of enforcement allegations, the replier stressed the challenges faced in relating and delivering clicked labourers and the way taken to ameliorate enforcement mechanisms

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

ARTICLE 21: – PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.[2]

ARTICLE 23: – PROHIBITION OF TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS AND FORCED LABOUR

“(1) Traffic in human beings and beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

 (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.” [3]

ARTICLE 24: – PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN In Factories, Etc

“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.”[4]

ARTICLE 39: – CERTAIN PRINCIPLES OF POLICY TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE STATE

(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”;[5]

ARTICLE 39 (f) “That children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment”. [6]

ARTICLE 42: -PROVISION FOR JUST AND HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK AND MATERNITY

“The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.”[7]

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

  • Bonded labour is a violation of abecedarian rights The court emphasized that forcing individualities into labour against their will through compulsion, intimidation, or debt thrall is a direct violation of Composition 23 of the Indian Constitution (Prohibition of business in mortal beings and forced labour).
  • State’s obligation to help and annihilate clicked labour The judgment underlined the state’s positive duty to take visionary measures to help and annihilate clicked labour, rather than simply replying to complaints.
  • Rehabilitation and reintegration of saved clicked labourers The judgment emphasized the significance of furnishing comprehensive recuperation and reintegration programs for individualities freed from clicked labour to help them from falling back into the same situation.

GUIDELINES

The Bandhua Mukti Morcha case was instrumental in shaping India’s anti-bonded labour jurisprudence. The Supreme Court issued a series of guidelines and directives to address the systemic issue of bonded labour.

IDENTIFICATION AND RESCUE OF BONDED LABOURERS

  • Establishment of effective mechanisms for identifying bonded labourers.
  • Setting up special task forces or cells to rescue bonded labourers.
  • Protection of rescued bonded labourers from intimidation and harassment.

REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION

  • Providing rehabilitation programs to help bonded labourers rebuild their lives.
  • Ensuring access to education, vocational training, and healthcare.
  • Facilitating the return of rescued bonded labourers to their native places.

PREVENTION OF BONDED LABOUR

  • Strengthening enforcement of anti-bonded labour laws.
  • Raising awareness about bonded labour through public campaigns.
  • Empowering vulnerable communities to resist falling into bonded labour.

ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

  • Imposing strict penalties on those involved in bonded labour.
  • Monitoring labour conditions in vulnerable sectors.
  • Collaborating with NGOs and civil society organizations.

OBITER DICTA

Broader societal issues the court made compliances about poverty, ignorance, or the part of profitable development in combating clicked labour, which, while applicable to the case, might not be essential to the core holding. 

  • Policy recommendations: The court suggested that the policy changes or reforms are beyond the immediate compass of the case, similar as strengthening law enforcement agencies or furnishing vocational training for saved clicked labourers.
  • Examens of government conduct: While the court blamed specific government conduct, some of these examens might not be directly linked to the core legal issues and could be considered obiter dicta.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

Bandura Mukti Morcha v. Union of India is a seminal Supreme Court judgement ordering the freeing of bonded labour in India. The correct idea of the recognition that, founded on narrowing it down to be an open infringement out basic rights is a defining moment at holding their own pride and worth by those crushed area returnee-needed.

A present-day comprehensive legal and policy framework directed at identification, release, rehabilitation as well as prevention of bonded labour would not have been possible but for the directions by the court. The verdict has reinforced the obligation of state and government to shield citizens from such exploitation.

Although a milestone court ruling had been delivered, there were still struggles to be faced. While the guidelines in relation to are important, it is essential however that these findings implemented efficiently. Bonded Labour Is Deeply Entrenched.

Given that labour practices are ever-changing, legal frameworks also need to be constantly updated and altered accordingly. New forms of exploitation, including debt bondage and human trafficking require a strong legal response.

The Bandhula Mukti Morcha case is a telling example of how the judiciary stands as a vanguard to vindicate human rights and strive for social justice. Yet, the real value of such an exercise is to serve as a trigger that propels all sections – government; civil society and individuals into action towards eliminating bonded labour and creating a fairer order.

ENDNOTES:

[1]  Debt bondage in India – Wikipedia

[2] Article 21 of The Constitution of India.

[3] Article 23 of The Constitution of India.

[4] Article 24 of The Constitution of India.

[5] Article 39(e) of The Constitution of India.

[6] Article 39 (f) of The Constitution of India

[7] Article 42 of The Constitution of India.