This article is written by Neha Gururani and further updated by Kruti Brahmbhatt. This article discusses the right against exploitation provided under the Indian Constitution with the issue of child labour and the various legislations for the protection of child rights. The article also discusses various landmark case laws and international laws safeguarding the rights against exploitation, and explains what is the right against exploitation. 

Table of Contents

Introduction

India, being the largest democracy, tracks the progress and development, which had great struggles. For centuries, slavery has been a major concern in India. After the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, slavery was abolished. The right to live with liberty and dignity has been given under the Indian Constitution, which has no scope for exploitation, slavery, and ill-treatment. Despite being fundamental rights, these articles hardly had any significance or any judicial pronouncement concerning them. However, later on, these articles turned out to be instruments for the courts to improve the condition of the people. 

The term exploitation means that where a person forces or misuses power to render services. The basic feature of the Indian Constitution is against such exploitative practices.  Along with Article 23  and Article 24, exploitation violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right of a person to live a life with dignity. 

Download Now

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution : prohibition of ‘traffic in human beings’ and forced labour

Antisocial practices such as bonded labourers, beggars, trafficking human beings, prostitutes, etc. had been prevalent in Indian history. The people who have been the victims of these practices were brutally exploited; it used to be a usual practice wherein they were being forced to work, without fair compensation. Meeting the basic necessities seemed to be a nightmare. 

Such antisocial practices were abolished under Article 23 and Article 24 of the Constitution. These provisions expressly prohibit human trafficking, forced labour, and other similar activities. Any person violating these provisions shall be punished. 

Objectives of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution

  • Article 23 guarantees a fundamental right to the individuals, which provides protection against all exploitative practices. 
  • It is applicable to both citizens and non-citizens. 
  • This right protects individuals against the exploitative practices of the state as well as private individuals. 
  • The parliament is authorised to enact laws, under Article 35, which deals with the punishments against anyone violating fundamental rights. This imposes a duty on the state to abolish such immoral practices. 

Article 23 (1) of the Indian Constitution 

Article 23(1) strictly prohibits human trafficking, begar, and other similar activities. This provision ensures that everybody has a right to life and work with dignity. It focuses on abolishing the antisocial practices wherein the person would be treated as enslaved. These practices were the social evils that ignored the basic human rights of a person. Contravention of this provision shall be a punishable offence. 

Begar

The term “begar” mentioned in the article means compulsory work without any compensation for it. This practice was prevalent before the enforcement of the Constitution. The main victims of these practices were the children, who were forced to beg and work. Such a practice was a clear violation of the fundamental rights of individuals.  

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of Suraj Narain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1960), stated, “to ask a man to work and then not to pay him any salary or wages of beggar. It is a Fundamental Right of a citizen of India not to be compelled to work without wages.” In other words, a begar is a person who is compelled to work without wages and against his/her will. 

Human trafficking

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, the meaning of the word “trafficking” is to carry on an illegal commercial activity, such as selling drugs or substances that are banned. The term human trafficking means illegally moving someone from one place to another with or without their consent for illegal work. Human beings are bought and sold just like goods, especially women and children. The term “slavery” is not prescribed in Article 23, but is included under human trafficking. 

Human trafficking includes sexual slavery, prostitution, illegal migration, and forced labour. Women and children are the main targets for such crimes. The objective of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution is to prohibit human trafficking and forced labour. The term human trafficking is broad enough to include the prohibition of women’s trafficking for immoral purposes. In the case of Vishal Jeet vs. Union of India (1990), the honourable Supreme Court observed that the problem of human trafficking is not just social but also socio-economic. Hence, the focus must be on the prevention of human trafficking rather than punitive. Further, to combat the problem of human trafficking, the Supreme Court in this case laid down guidelines for the advisory committees of the states and the Central Government.  The guidelines were: 

  • The state and the central government take swift action against child prostitution.
  • Formation of a separate advisory committee under the state and the central government.
  • The court directed that all children and inmates from the red light areas and those who are engaged in the “flesh trade” must be sent to protective homes and then must be rehabilitated. 

In the case of Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India (1997), the rehabilitation of prostitutes and their children was the issue before the Supreme Court.  The Court, in this case, had issued several directions for the rehabilitation of the children of the prostitutes, child prostitutes and had further issued directions to establish juvenile homes for them. 

In the case of Geeta Kanchan Tamang vs. the State of Maharashtra (2009), the Court denied the mercy petition of the accused women traffickers. The court stated that while deciding such matters, the court must consider that such a heinous crime is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India and that it is a fundamental right of every citizen to live without fear or threat of trafficking. 

Other forms of forced labour 

Article 23(1)  prohibits other similar forms of forced labour. Forced labour means when a person is forced to work unwillingly, either by coercion, violence, or intimidation or against debt.  This phrase “other forms of forced labour” is here interpreted as ejusdem generis. All other kinds of forced labour are covered in this form, except for the ones that can be either considered “begar” or human trafficking. 

Bonded labour is also prohibited under this article, wherein, the person is forced to work for life against his debt. The payment of wages would be significantly less than the work done by the worker. These debts are passed on to the next generation if the workers are unable to clear their debts. Under this practice, a few powerful persons in the society would exploit the weak or poor people of the society. 

The Supreme Court, while ruling in various cases, has expanded the term “forced labour” under Article 23(1) of the Constitution. In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court interpreted the scope of Article 23. Bhagwati J. held as follows- “The scope of Article 23 is vast and unlimited. It is not merely ‘begar’ which is prohibited under this Article. This Article strikes at forced labour in whichever form it may exist, as it violates human dignity and opposes basic human values. Hence, every form of forced labour is prohibited by Article 23 without considering whether forced labour is being paid or not. Also, no person shall be forced to provide labour or services against his will, even if it is mentioned under a contract of service. The word ‘force’ has a very wide meaning under Article 23. It not only includes physical or legal force but also recognises economic circumstances which compel a person to work against his will on less than the minimum wage. It was directed by the court to the government to take necessary steps punishing the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens guaranteed under Article 23 by private individuals.”

Justice Wadhwa, in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat (1998), while commenting on the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, observed that the court had clearly said that every form of labour, whether it is begar or something else, is prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. Regardless of whether the person was paid or not to work, if the labour was forced, then it shall come under the purview of Article 23. Further, Justice Wadhwa stated that under Article 23, no one can be forced to provide labour or service, even if it is under a contract of service. The court stated that payment of full wages when labour exacted is forced will attract the prohibition contained in Article 23.

In Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan (1983), in accordance with the Famine Relief Act, 1964, the state had employed people for a certain work. The state employed them because they were suffering from famine. The state paid them below the minimum wage on the ground that it was a help given to them. Bhagwati J. held that-  “The payment of wages lower than the minimum wage to a person employed in Famine Relief Work is violative under Article 23. The state is not allowed to take undue advantage of the helplessness of such people with an excuse of helping them to meet the situation of famine or drought.”

In Deena vs. Union of India (1983), it was held by Chandrachud C. J. that- “The labours taken from the prisoners without paying remuneration was ‘forced labour’ and violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable wages for the work taken from them and the Court is under a duty to enforce their claim.”

In the case of Rohit Vasavacia vs. General Manager, (1983), without any adequate safeguards, the workers had to handle urea manually. They were not allowed to leave the premises as per their desire, and no proper wages were paid to them. The Gujarat High Court considered this as forced labour prohibited under Article 23. The Court held that when, due to economic compulsions, the workers are forced to work in inhuman or subhuman conditions without safety measures, irrespective of the wage given to them, it shall be forced labour under Article 23.

However, the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi (2006), did not consider it to be forced labour. The Court did not consider it in forced labour because the employees accepted the employment, knowing the terms and nature of their employment. However, the Supreme Court ensured that the minimum wages were being paid to the workers.

Article 23(2) of the Indian Constitution 

Article 23(2) states that the state may impose compulsory services for public purposes. These compulsory services can include national defence, removal of illiteracy and other public utility services, (electricity, water, air and rail services, postal services, etc.). These compulsory services for public purposes shall not be considered exploitation or forced labour. The state, however, cannot discriminate based on religion, race, caste, class, or any of them. The word “public intent” used in Article 23(2) clearly states that the services must be availed of for the common good of the public at large and not against any individuals. 

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, aims to abolish the bonded labour system throughout the country. It was enforced on October 25, 1975. The practice of bonded labour was considered a cognizable offence, which is punishable by law under this Act. It prevented the economic and social exploitation of the weaker sections of society. Under this Act, accepting payment against a bonded debt, compelling a person to work, advancing a bondage debt, enforcing the bonded labour system, etc., were held to be punishable offences. 

Some of the salient features of the Act are as follows: 

  • All the bonded labourers were free from the obligation to repay their debts or any services against their debt. 
  • Appointment of authorities and committees by the central and state governments. The committee must ensure implementation of the provisions of the Act. 
  • Provides protection for the property, homestead, and other rights of the freed bonded labourers. It prohibits any eviction or dispossession of any such property. 
  • The Act provides punishment for anyone who violates the provisions of the Act. 
  • The Act imposes a duty on district administration to restore the bonded labourers to possession of the home shed or other residential premises.
  • It also imposes an obligation on the state government to rehabilitate bonded labour. The state government has to rehabilitate the freed bonded labourers socially and economically.

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 

The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, was enacted by the Parliament in pursuance of the International Convention signed in New York on May 9, 1950, to suppress the immoral trafficking of women and girls. Later, this Act was amended with the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The objective of the Act was to prevent the trafficking of females for sexual activities. 

Some of the salient features of the Act are as follows: 

  • Section 2(a) provides the definition of a brothel, which means any place, either house or room, used for prostitution for another person’s gain or for any mutual gain of prostitutes. 
  • Under Section 5, any person who procures, induces, or takes a woman or girl for prostitution purposes, with or without her consent, shall be held punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years, and also with a fine that may extend to two thousand rupees. 

If a person is convicted second or subsequently, then they shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years, with a fine that may extend to two thousand rupees.

In the case where the offence is committed against a person’s will or a child, a person shall be punishable with 14 years or life imprisonment.

Article 24 of the Indian Constitution : prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc

The employment of children below the age of 14 years is strictly prohibited in factories, mines or any other hazardous employment under Article 24. The objective of this provision is to ensure the health and safety of the children. Under the directive principles of state policy given under Article 39, it is the duty of the state to ensure the health and strength of the workers. The state must make sure that men, women, or children are not abused and forced due to economic necessity. 

Children, being the future of the nation, have to be provided with good food, education, and health. It is essential to ensure the progress and development of children for the development of the nation. In the case of Unni Krishna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court held that education up to the age of 14 years is a fundamental right. Additionally, the right to life includes the right to health and the right to potable water. All these rights have been declared to be fundamental rights, and the child is equally entitled to all of these fundamental rights.

However, employment in harmless jobs or non-risky areas is not prohibited. For instance, working in agricultural fields, grocery shops, etc. 

Objectives of Article 24 of the Indian Constitution

  • Safeguards children from working in hazardous and exploitative practices. 
  • For effective implementation of the Article, it has to be read with Article 39(e) and (f). 
  • Children can be employed only for harmless work. 

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982),. Bhagwati J. held that- “The contention given by the Government is not at all acceptable. The construction work is hazardous employment and therefore, children below 14 years must not be employed in the construction work even if the construction work is not specifically mentioned under the schedule of the Employment of Children Act, 1938. The state Government is advised to take immediate necessary steps in order to include the construction work in the schedule of the Act and to ensure that Article 24 is not violated in any part of the country.”

In the case of M. C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), it was held by Hansaria J. that- “The children below 14 years cannot be employed in hazardous activities and the state must lay down certain guidelines in order to prevent social, economic and humanitarian rights of such children working illegally in the public and private sector. Also, it is violative of Article 24 and it is the duty of the state to ensure free and compulsory education to them. It was further directed to establish a Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund and to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 to each child.”

Legislations for the protection of child rights

To accomplish the obligations carried out by Article 24 and in certain international instruments like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the Parliament of India enacted some acts for the welfare and prosperity of children.

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986

This Act prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 in any kind of hazardous employment. It prohibits approximately 13 occupations and 51 processes for the employment of children. This Act was amended by the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016. This act prohibits the engagement of children in all occupations, and it prohibits the engagement of adolescents in hazardous occupations. 

The few highlights of the act are as follows: 

  • The Act completely prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years.
  • The children are allowed to work only after school hours or during vacations under the condition that the occupations are not hazardous
  • The children between the ages of 14 and 18 were categorised as adolescents. They are not allowed to work in any hazardous occupations.
  • The government can bar such employment or occupations where adolescents are working in hazardous conditions.

The Mines Act, 1952

This Act explicitly mentions, under Section 40, that a person working in the mine should not be less than 18 years old.  Section 45 of the Mines Act, 1952, prohibits any person below the age of 18 years in any part of the mine above ground where any operation connected with or incidental to any mining operations is being carried on.

The Factories Act, 1948

It prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 in factories. This Act prescribes certain restrictions and proper procedures for employing children over the age of 14 years. Later, in 1954, the age of the children was amended from 14 years to 17 years, which means that children below the age of 17 years could not be employed in factories. 

The Plantation Labour Act, 1951

Under this Act, children over 12 years of age can be employed. Additionally, it also lays down guidelines that require periodical fitness checkups of children who are employed above the age of 12. 

The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961

Children below the age of 15 years are prohibited from being employed in the motor transport sector under this Act. 

The Apprentices Act, 1961

Apprenticeship training below the age of 14 years is prohibited under this Act. 

The Beedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment) Act, 1966

Any children below the age of 14 years can’t be employed in any industrial premises with manufactured beedis and cigars, this is prohibited under this Act. 

Other initiatives 

Apart from these legislative provisions, various committees and commissions are established to look into the issues related to child labour. Various NGOs work to promote child welfare and development. Children who were either victims of bonded labourers practices or child labour are being kept in the rehabilitation centres, where they are given opportunities to develop and grow, which gives a new shape to the lives of children. These initiatives protect them from being exploited again. 

National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights

The National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is a commission established in 2007 under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. The aim of establishing this statutory body is to effectively enforce the laws, policies and programmes. Also, to ensure that the laws and provisions made are in accordance with the rights provided under the Indian Constitution and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

The NCPCR has to examine, review, and recommend the provisions regarding child rights and has to ensure that they are effectively implemented. The commission has to promote awareness and investigate complaints, or it may even take suo motu notice of issues related to the violation of child rights. Additionally, the National Commission has to examine and monitor the provisions, guidelines, formulation, and implementation of the two major Acts regarding children’s rights, i.e., the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights 

Under the Commission for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) Act, 2005, the state government has to constitute the state commission, which must have the duty to exercise its powers and protect child rights. 

Landmark judgements surrounding right against exploitation

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

This is a landmark case that not only expanded the scope of Article 32 but also gave a wide interpretation of Article 24. In this case, the Delhi development authority, New Delhi Municipal Commissioner, and Delhi administration had engaged contractors as principal employers under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, for the project of construction of hotels, stadiums, etc., for the government of India. The workmen were hired from Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Orissa.

Herein, the male workmen were given ₹9.25 per day and females at ₹ 7 per day. Additionally, children below the age of 14 were employed in such hazardous conditions, and from the wages, Rs. 1 shall be given to the Jamadars.

The fact-finding team wrote a letter to Justice Bhagwati, which was later considered as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in this case, which stated that the workers were not given equal pay and were forced to work beyond their working hours. The team, while reviewing the workers, also found that children were dying of malnutrition, and due to such hazardous conditions, they had to suffer from serious accidents. One of the grounds for the petitioner’s argument was that Article 24 of the Constitution was violated and the working conditions were exploitative for the workers.

The Court held that the employment of children under 14 years of age must be prohibited. Article 24 of the Indian Constitution strictly prohibits the employment of any child below the age of 14 in any hazardous occupation. The Court also emphasised that the project is carried out by the government department or through a contractor. The labour laws were to be strictly followed.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India & Others (1997) 

In this case, a large number of labourers were employed in stone quarries in the state of Haryana. The labourers herein were working under inhumane and pathetic conditions. No medical aid was provided to them, and no safety rules were given. Further, they were kept in sketchy, torn huts without roofs. The children below the age of 14 years were employed in industries violating Article 24 of the Constitution. It was observed that the state authorities were not properly enforcing the labour laws. 

The Supreme Court in this case ordered the release of these bonded labourers and also took cognizance of certain complaints of the workmen at stone quarries. As per the workers, there was no provision for pure drinking water, no conservancy facilities, and the absence of medical facilities, etc., so the court ordered the state authorities to provide these basic facilities to the workers.

The Court strictly emphasised the rehabilitation of these bonded labourers; otherwise, their conditions would be worse than before. The Court had stated that it was the fundamental right of everyone in the country to live with human dignity and be free from exploitation, which is the fundamental right of the citizen under Articles 21 and 23. Additionally, the Court held that child labour has to be banned and also referred to various provisions of the UDHR and other conventions for child rights. 

M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others (1996) 

In this case, the PIL was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. It was against the employment of children in the Sivakasi fireworks industry. It violated the fundamental rights of the children guaranteed under Article 24 of the Indian Constitution. The industry had about 2941 children employed in the manufacturing process of matches and fireworks, which was hazardous, giving rise to serious accidents. 

The petitioner had filed the petition as the respondents failed to comply with the directions in a suo moto petition to eradicate child labour. 

The Supreme Court observed that this violation of Article 24 is a national problem despite being a fundamental right.  

The court had observed it to be a failure on the part of the state to implement various legislation, such as the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which failed to fulfil the duty as per Article 39(e) and (f), Article 41, Article 45 and Article 47 of the Constitution. The Court had ordered Sivakasi Industries to pay a compensation of ₹20,000 to every child employed. Additionally, the state had to implement all the constitutional provisions. 

Neeraja Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (1984)  

The bonded labourers who were released in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha, were not properly rehabilitated, and this was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court by Neeraja Chaudhary in the present case. It was claimed that it was the duty of the state to rehabilitate these bonded labourers. 

The Supreme Court stated, “Whenever it is found that any workman is forced to provide for no remuneration or nominal remuneration, the presumption would be that he is a bonded labourer unless the employer or the state Government is in a position to prove otherwise by rebutting such presumption.” 

Herein, the Supreme Court observed that it was extremely important to rehabilitate these labourers; otherwise, they would again relapse into bondage. The Court placed the entire responsibility on the state and directed it to provide rehabilitation within a month. The Court also observed that it would be cruel and heartless to release the bonded labourers back to the existing social and economic system, wherein the labourers are deprived of basic needs such as food, shelter, drinking water, clothing, etc. Such a situation of poverty and destitution is present in Indian rural life for a large number of people, where these labourers cannot be released. The Court emphasised that it was the “plainest requirement of Article 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution that bonded labourers must be identified and released, and, on release, they must be suitably rehabilitated.”  Hence, all efforts must be made to see that freed bonded labourers are properly and suitably rehabilitated after identification and release. 

Additionally, the Court stated that any failure on the part of the government to implement the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act would be the clearest violation of Article 21 and Article 23. 

International perspective on rights against exploitation 

India, being a member of the United Nations, has ratified many international conventions, like the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions, in order to safeguard the rights of children and labourers. The UDHR clearly states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, which strictly prohibits exploitative practices. Under Article 4 of the UDHR, it strictly prohibits slavery and servitude.

UN Global Compact 

UN global compact provides 10 principles which are derived from different conventions. Four principles deals with the rights of the labourers

These are as follows: 

  • Principle 3: states that businesses must uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of their rights to collective bargaining.
  • Principle 4: abolishes all forms of forced labour and compulsory labour.
  • Principle 5: effective abolition of child labour
  • Principle 6: eliminates all kinds of discrimination with respect to occupation and employment.

International Labour Organisation (ILO)

The ILO provides legally binding obligations on the countries to ratify the guidelines, maintain standard labour practices, and safeguard the rights of the labourers. These guidelines are useful for taking legislative and administrative measures for the protection and advancement of the interests of the labourers. The main objective of the ILO is to provide a standard of work and ensure that men and women get equal opportunities to work and get equal treatment. 

So far, India has rectified the below-mentioned conventions and rights that have been provided by the ILO, which are as follows: 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 

The United Nations has adopted many conventions and treaties, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, is one of them. Since the child is physically and mentally immature, it needs special care and protection. Hence, this convention provides legal protection for the child before and after his birth. Under UNCRC, all human beings below the age of 18 are considered children. UNCRC provides the basic rights for these children. For instance, the right to life, survival, and development. Right to education, right to protection against violence and abuse, right to express themselves, and right to have a relationship with their parents.

Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the state must take all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment, or exploitation. This also includes protection against physical abuse.

Conclusion

For a very long period, the stronger section of society has exploited the weaker section of society. In such a case, it is essential that the weaker are protected and uplifted; it is important to provide them equal opportunities in each area so that they can empower themselves. In order to free society from such social evil, it is important that people are aware of their fundamental rights. The lack of awareness among these sections of society gives more power to exploitative practices. It is extremely important to uphold human dignity and prohibit forced labour and human trafficking. Educating such workers regarding their rights can ensure the eradication of exploitative practices and the building of a welfare state. 

The prevalence of child labour in society is a malediction. It acts as an obstacle to the development and growth of the country. The bright future of a country depends on the health and development of its children. Indeed, child labour blemishes vandalise and devastate the bright future of a country, which turns out to be a huge hurdle in the progress of the country. Hence, proper implementation and awareness of these laws are an absolute necessity. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Is Article 23 operative against the government only? 

No, the right under Article 23 and Article 24 of the Indian Constitution is operative against the government as well as private individuals or entities. The right against exploitation is a fundamental right enshrined under the Indian Constitution that can be enforced even against private individuals. The state is under an obligation to take steps against the violation of these rights and ensure that no one is exploited. 

Is forced hard labour by prisoners under the purview of Article 23? 

In the case of Prison Reforms Enhancement of Wages of Prisoners vs. Unknown (1983), the High Court of Kerala held that Article 23(1) is a right guaranteed to all citizens, and there can be no reason as to why the prisoners should lose their rights to receive reasonable wages. The court also stated that no person can be made to do labour forcefully. 

Hence, the forceful hard labour by prisoners falls under the purview of Article 23(1), the prisoners can be asked to work. However, they cannot be forced to work without receiving any remuneration for their labour. 

What are the Indian Penal Code provisions against human trafficking and forced labour?

The significant provisions regarding human trafficking and forced labour under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are: 

  • Section 366A prescribes that if a minor girl under 18 years of age is induced to go to any place for any kind of intercourse, forced, or seduced with another person, it shall be a punishable offence. 
  • Section 366B prescribes that if a girl under 21 years of age is imported with the intention of having forced or seduced intercourse with another person, it shall be a punishable offence.  
  • Section 374 prescribes punishment when any person is unlawfully compelled to work against his will. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here