Article 23-24

Article 23 and Article 24 

Right against Exploitation 

Articles 23 and 24 constitute a group under the head ‘Right against Exploitation.’ Exploitation is opposed to the dignity of the individual proclaimed in the Preamble and to the provisions of Art. 39(e) and (f). 

The two rights guaranteed under this head seem to supplement the ‘right to freedom’, as the real object of these two rights is nothing more than to protect the personal freedom of the citizens. One may partially agree with the view of Prof. K.V. Rao’ “Indeed, the Makers had displayed considerable ingenuity in coining a name for them (Rights against Exploitation), for they confer no right on any one, nor an enforceable punishment. They ought to have been in Part IV, for the Parliament has to make a law prescribing a punishment which it could have done under Arts. 15 and 19(6). 

Article 23: Traffic in Human Beings, Begar, Forced Labour Art. 23(1) says: “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. 

(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.” 

Article 23(1) prohibits “traffic in human beings and begar and other forced labour”. Traffic in human beings and forced labour militates against human dignity. 

Art. 23 protects the individual not only against the State but also private citizens. Under Art. 35, the Pariiament is authorized to make laws for punishing acts prohibited by this article. 

‘Traffic in human beings’ – It means to deal in men and women like goods such as to sell or let out or otherwise dispose them off. It includes immoral traffic in women or girls or subjecting children to immoral or such like practices. For this sake, the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 had been put in operation. The validity of this Act has been upheld by laying down that it is not inconsistent with the fundamental right to carry on a business, trade or profession (Shama v State of UP. AIR 1959 All. 57).

Devadasis are also covered under the term “traffic in human beings”. Though ‘slavery’ is not expressly mentioned, there is no doubt that the expression ‘traffic in human beings’ would cover it (Dubarv Union of India MR 1952 Cal. 496). It may be noted that under Sec. 370, IPC, whoever imports, exports, removes, buys, sells or disposes off any person as a slave shall be punished with imprisonment. 

‘Begar and other forced labour’ – ‘Begar means forcing a person to do some work against his will and that on the basis of non-payment or grossly inadequate payment. However, this condition shall not apply to a case where forced labour is a part of punishment as in a prison house or some such work forms part of the service conditions or agreement. 

‘Bonded labour1 is a form of forced labour that is forbidden. In the ‘Asiad case’ (,P.U.D.R v UOI AIR 1982 SC 1473), the Supreme Court gave a wide meaning to the word ‘force.’ Force is not mere physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic 

circumstances. The person in want has no choice. He may be compelled to work for a wage less than the minimum. He may even agree to pay a part of his wages to a middleman. 

It may be noted that, as a result of Art. 23, as many as 12 Acts sanctioning forced labour, under certain circumstances, became void on the enactment of the Constitution. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, has brought freedom within the reach of many persons who were being forced to work, along with their family in some cases, by contractors. 

Even when the State undertakes famine relief work it cannot pay less than the minimum wage. The State cannot take advantage of their helplessness. If it does so it would be violative of Art. 23 (Sanjit Roy v State of Rajasthan AIR 1983 SC 328). 

Article 24: Prohibition on Employment of Children 

Art. 24 of the Constitution provides that “No child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment”. This provision read with Art. 39(e) and (f) (directive principles), provides for the protection of the health and strength of children below the age of 14 years. Several Acts also give effect to the provisions of the Constitution e.g. the Employment of Children Act, 1938, the Factories Act, 1948, the Mines Act, 1953, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, etc. This is in keeping with the human rights concepts and United Nations/I.L.O. norms, international Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by India on 20-11-1989.

In P.U.D.R. v UOi (AIR 1983 SC 1473), held that under Art. 24 no child below the age of 14 years can be employed in the construction work even if construction industry is not specified in the Schedule to the Employment of Children Act, 1938. 

In M.C. Mehta v State of T.N. (AIR 1997 SC 609), held that children below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, mines or other works and has laid down exhaustive guidelines how the State authorities should protect economic, social and humanitarian rights of millions of working children. The matter was brought before the Court by way of PIL, regarding the plight of the children engaged in Sivakasi cracker factories. 

of the children engaged in Sivakasi cracker factories. The Supreme Court directed setting up of ‘Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund’ and asked the offending employer to pay for each 

child a compensation of Rs.20,000 to be deposited in the Fund. The Court made it clear that employer’s liability would not cease even if he would desire to disengage the child presently employed, and asked the Government to ensure that an adult member of the child’s family get a job in a factory or anywhere in lieu of the child, in those cases where it would not be possible to provide jobs, the appropriate Government would deposit Rs.25,000 in the Fund for each child engaged in factory/mine or any other hazardous employment. The case of getting employment for an adult, the parent/guardian shall have to withdraw the child from the job. Even if no employment would be provided, the parent shall have to see that his child is spared from the requirement of the job as an alternative source of income – interest income from deposit of Rs.25,000 – would become available to the child’s family till he continues his studies up to the age of 14 years. All the above benefit would cease if the child is not sent for education by parents. 

The Court identified nine industries where the work could be taken up, namely – match industry in Sivakasi (T.N.); diamond-polishing industry in Surat (Gujarat); precious stone polishing industry in Jaipur (Rajasthan); glass industry in Firozabad, prass-ware industry in Moradabad, hand-made carpet industry in Mirzapur, lock making industry in Aligarh (U.R); slate-industry in Mankaour (Andhra Pradesh); and slate-industry in Mandsaur (M.P), for priority action. In so far as the non-hazardous jobs are concerned, the Inspector shall have to see that working hours of child are not more than 4-6 hours a day and it receives education at least for two hours each day. The cost of education shall be borne by the employer. 

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 2218), the court observed: “The basic cause for child labour being poverty, instead of its total abolition which will have adverse effect, it should be banned progressively in a planned manner starling from the most hazardous and intolerable activities like slavery, bonded

labour, trafficking, prostitution, pornography and dangerous forms of labour, etc. Thus, other simultaneous alternatives to the child should be evolved including providing compulsory education, health care, nutrient food, shelter and other means of livelihood with self-respect and dignity of person’’, in this case, a PIL alleged employment of children aged below 14 years in Carpet Industry in U.P. 

The Supreme Court observed: “The child of today cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of tomorrow’s society unless an environment which is conducive to his social 

and physical health is assured to him. Neglecting the children means loss to the society as a whole. Their employment – either forced or voluntary – is occasioned due to poverty; exploitation of their childhood thus (in particular the poor/deprived sections) is detrimental to democracy and social stability, unity and integrity of the nation”. 

The Court further observed: “Various welfare measurers made by Parliament/ State Legislatures are only teasing illusions and a promise of unreality unless they are effectively implemented and the ‘right to life’ to the child driven to labour is made a reality, meaningful and happy. Child labour must be eradicated, through well planned, poverty-focused alleviation, development and imposition of trade actions in employment of the children, etc.