Right Against Exploitation under Articles 23 and 24

The right against exploitation is a fundamental principle enshrined in the Constitution of India. Articles 23 and 24, which form part of the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution, are designed to protect individuals from exploitation by prohibiting practices like forced labour, human trafficking, and child labour. 

These Articles reflect the Constitution’s core values of justice, dignity, and equality, ensuring that no person is subjected to inhumane treatment or forced into situations that undermine their dignity.

Introduction to Right Against Exploitation

India’s Constitution, adopted in 1950, set out to eradicate the exploitation that was rampant during colonial rule. During British rule, various exploitative practices, including bonded labour, child labour, and human trafficking, were prevalent. The framers of the Indian Constitution were determined to build a society that would guarantee dignity and equality for all citizens, and thus, Articles 23 and 24 were included to protect against such exploitation.

While the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, these Articles also reflect India’s commitment to international human rights norms, as enshrined in several United Nations conventions and declarations.

Article 23: Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour

Text of Article 23

Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits “traffic in human beings” and various forms of forced labour. It reads:

(1) 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.

Meaning and Scope of Article 23

• Traffic in Human Beings: This refers to the illegal trade and movement of people, particularly for purposes like forced prostitution, child trafficking, or organ trade. The definition is broad and covers all forms of exploitation where individuals are treated as commodities.
• Begar (Compulsory Labour): Begar refers to forced, unpaid labour, historically imposed by landlords, employers, or even the government. It was common during the feudal era, where individuals, often from marginalised communities, were forced to work for nothing in return.
• Other Similar Forms of Forced Labour: This phrase has been interpreted to include practices such as bonded labour, where individuals are forced to work to repay a debt, sometimes for generations. It also includes labour extracted under coercion, whether physical, psychological, or economic.
• Compulsory Service for Public Purposes: Article 23(2) allows for the imposition of compulsory service by the State, but it is limited to public purposes like national defence, disaster relief, or essential public services. However, such services must be free of any discrimination based on religion, caste, race, or class.

Landmark Cases Dealing With Article 23

The judiciary has played a vital role in interpreting and expanding the scope of Article 23.

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India held that the term “forced labour” under Article 23 includes not only physical force but also economic coercion. The Court observed that workmen, even if paid below the minimum wage, could be considered victims of forced labour if economic pressure forced them into such work. This judgement expanded the definition of “forced labour” to include any work done under conditions that violate human dignity.

Deena v. Union of India (1983)

The Court held that prisoners forced to work without remuneration were victims of forced labour, thereby reinforcing the rights of prisoners under Article 23. This case made it clear that forced labour, even in custodial settings, violated the fundamental rights of individuals.

State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1998)

This case reaffirmed that any form of forced labour, including that which was contracted under coercion, would fall under the ambit of Article 23.

Legislative Measures Under Article 23

India has enacted several laws to enforce the provisions of Article 23, including:

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

This Act declares bonded labour a cognisable offence, punishing those who enforce bonded labour, and providing for the rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers.

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

This law aims to prevent the trafficking of women and girls for prostitution. It criminalises the procurement, transportation, and exploitation of individuals for commercial sexual exploitation.

Other Labour Laws

The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, provide mechanisms to ensure that individuals are not exploited through low wages or forced labour.

Article 24: Prohibition of Child Labour

Text of Article 24

Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits the employment of children under the age of fourteen in any factory or hazardous work. It 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.

Meaning and Scope of Article 24

Child Labour

This provision seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of child labour. Children under the age of fourteen are prohibited from working in factories, mines, and other hazardous industries where their physical and mental well-being would be jeopardised.

Hazardous Employment

Hazardous employment refers to jobs that are physically demanding or that expose children to dangerous machinery, chemicals, or unhealthy environments. Such employment is deemed to violate the child’s right to safety, health, and education.

Landmark Cases Dealing With Article 24

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)

The Supreme Court extended the interpretation of hazardous employment to construction sites, affirming that children below fourteen should not be employed in any hazardous occupations, regardless of whether the work is explicitly listed under child labour laws.

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)

This case involved the employment of children in the hazardous fireworks industry of Sivakasi. The Supreme Court directed the State to ensure the rehabilitation of children working in such industries and mandated compensation for them. It also underscored the state’s responsibility to ensure that child labour laws were strictly enforced.

Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

The Court in Unni Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that education up to the age of 14 is a fundamental right under Article 21A, and child labour violates the basic right of children to education, health, and development.

Legislative Measures Under Article 24

Several legislative measures complement the provisions of Article 24 to prevent child labour in India:

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

This Act prohibits the employment of children below the age of fourteen in hazardous occupations. It also regulates the conditions under which adolescents (14-18 years) can work, ensuring that their work is not harmful to their physical or mental development.

The Factories Act, 1948

This Act prohibits the employment of children under the age of fourteen in factories and prescribes conditions for the employment of young persons aged fourteen to eighteen.

The Mines Act, 1952

This Act prohibits the employment of children under the age of eighteen in mines.

Challenges in Implementing Articles 23 and 24

While the legal framework is robust, several challenges persist in the implementation of Articles 23 and 24:

1. Poverty and Socio-Economic Inequality: Many families in rural areas are compelled to send their children to work due to economic hardship. The lack of accessible and quality education further exacerbates the problem of child labour.
2. Weak Enforcement: Despite strong legal provisions, enforcement remains a challenge. The lack of adequate monitoring, corruption, and the unorganised nature of child labour in sectors like agriculture and domestic work hinder effective implementation.
3. Cultural Practices and Social Norms: In some parts of the country, child labour is culturally accepted. Changing these deep-rooted norms requires a concerted effort from the government, NGOs, and society.

Conclusion

Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution serve as powerful tools in the fight against exploitation. They guarantee freedom from forced labour, human trafficking, and child labour, upholding the dignity and rights of individuals. 

However, the successful implementation of these Articles requires constant vigilance, better enforcement of laws, socio-economic development, and widespread awareness campaigns. To truly fulfil the promise of these rights, the State must ensure that every citizen, especially children, has the opportunity to lead a life free from exploitation and abuse.

Researcher: Pragya Jaishwal (Symbiosis Law School, Noida)

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal