The Right against Exploitation, enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution, is a fundamental right that guarantees human dignity and protects individuals from any form of exploitation. These articles aim to uphold the principles of human dignity and liberty upon which the Indian Constitution is based.

Introduction

The Indian laws strictly prohibit slavery and any act that harms the dignity and freedom of an individual. However, despite these laws, there are still instances where people view themselves as superior to others, leading to exploitation and forced labor. Human trafficking, forced labor, and the exploitation of women and children are prevalent issues in the country.

According to the Global Slavery Index, in 2016, there were 18.3 million people in modern slavery in India. The 2018 Global Slavery survey report indicated a further increase in forced sexual exploitation and child labor. In light of these alarming statistics, it becomes crucial to understand the right against exploitation and the provisions within the Indian Constitution that address these issues.

Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution explicitly prohibits the trafficking of human beings, begar (forced labor), and any similar form of forced labor. The contravention of this provision is punishable by law. Let's examine the various aspects covered under this article:

Human Trafficking

Human trafficking involves the sale and purchase of individuals, often for purposes such as sexual slavery, forced prostitution, or forced labor. This heinous practice aims to exploit vulnerable individuals and strip them of their freedom and dignity.

Begar

Begar refers to a form of forced labor where a person is compelled to work without remuneration. This practice is particularly prevalent among marginalized and economically disadvantaged communities. Article 23 explicitly prohibits such exploitation, ensuring that no individual is forced to work involuntarily without fair compensation.

Other Forms of Forced Labor

Article 23 also covers various other forms of forced labor. These include bonded labor, where individuals are forced to work to repay a debt under inadequate remuneration, as well as prison labor, where prisoners are compelled to work without even receiving minimum wages.

The scope of Article 23 is broad, encompassing any situation where a person is forced to provide labor against their will. It prohibits landowners from forcing impoverished laborers to render free services and forbids the coercion of women and children into prostitution.

Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC1943.

In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the Supreme Court defined the scope of Article 23. The court held that the term "force" in this article has a broad meaning, including physical force, legal force, and other economic factors that compel a person to provide labor for less than the minimum wage. Even if a person is forced to work for inadequate wages due to poverty, destitution, or hunger, it would still be considered forced labor under Article 23.

The court also clarified that "all similar forms of forced labor" mentioned in Article 23 include not only begar but also all other forms of forced labor. This means that even if a person receives some remuneration, as long as they are being forced to provide labor against their will, it would still be considered forced labor.

Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328.

In the case of Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, the state employed a large number of workers for a road construction project to provide relief from drought and scarcity conditions. However, these workers were paid less than the minimum wage, which was allowed under the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964.

The court held that the exemption provided by the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees Act, 1964, from the minimum wages act is constitutionally invalid. The minimum wage must be paid to all workers employed by the state for any famine relief work, regardless of whether they are affected by drought or scarcity. This ensures that the state does not take advantage of the vulnerable conditions of people affected by famine or drought and upholds the principle that they must be fairly compensated for their labor.

Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155.

In the case of Deena v. Union of India, the court held that if a prisoner is forced to perform labor without receiving any remuneration, it is considered forced labor and a violation of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. Prisoners are entitled to reasonable wages for the labor they perform, and denying them fair compensation amounts to forced labor.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.

The petitioner in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India was an organization fighting against the system of bonded labor. The organization conducted a survey of stone quarries in the Faridabad district and discovered a large number of workers subjected to "inhuman and intolerable conditions," with many of them being forced laborers.

The court laid down guidelines for determining bonded laborers and held that any person employed as a bonded laborer is deprived of their liberty. Such individuals become slaves, and their freedom in matters of employment is completely taken away. The court further stated that whenever it is established that a worker is engaged in forced labor, the court would presume that it is due to economic considerations, and the burden of proof lies with the employer and the state government to provide satisfactory evidence to rebut this presumption.

Kahason Tangkhul v. Simtri Shaili, AIR 1961 Manipur

In a case from Manipur, the court examined a customary practice where each householder was required to offer one day's free labor to the village headman or khullakpa. The court, in the case of Roweina Kahaosan Tangkhul v Ruiweinao Simirei Shailei Khullapka, held that this customary practice violated Article 23 of the Constitution. Insisting on carrying out this custom without providing wages for the labor rendered amounted to forced labor, as the villagers were compelled to work without receiving fair compensation.

State v. Banwari, AIR 1951 All. 615

In the case of State v. Banwari, barbers and dhobis contested against the U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, which prohibited individuals from refusing to render services based on the other person's caste. The court held that this provision did not equate to begar and, therefore, did not violate Article 23 of the Constitution.

Compulsory Service for Public Purposes

While Article 23 prohibits forced labor, it also allows the state to impose compulsory services for public purposes under Article 23, Clause 2. However, the state must ensure that there is no discrimination based on religion, race, caste, class, or any other grounds while imposing such services.

Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah, AIR 1958 Cal. 365

In the case of Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah, the petitioner challenged his appointment as a special police officer, claiming that it amounted to forced labor. However, the court ruled that conscription for police services could not be considered begar, traffic in human beings, or any similar form of forced labor. Therefore, the appointment as a special police officer did not violate Article 23.

Prohibition of Employment of Children in Factories, etc

Child labor is a grave issue that deprives children of a normal childhood and hampers their physical and mental well-being. Article 24 of the Indian Constitution recognizes the rights of children and prohibits their employment in factories or any hazardous occupation.

Article 39 of the Constitution further emphasizes the duty of the state to ensure that the tender age of children is not abused and that they are not forced to engage in unsuitable labor due to economic necessity.

People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1473

In the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the court observed that children under the age of fourteen were being employed in various Asiad projects. Although the Employment of Children Act, 1938, did not explicitly list the construction industry as hazardous, the court held that construction work falls under hazardous employment. Therefore, children under the age of fourteen must not be employed in construction work, even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the act. The court urged the state government to amend the schedule and include the construction industry in the list of hazardous industries.

M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699

In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, the court highlighted the issue of child labor in the manufacturing process of matches and fireworks in Sivakasi. The court deemed this industry hazardous and reiterated that children below the age of fourteen should not be employed in any hazardous industry. The employer in Sivakasi was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000 for employing children in violation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

Conclusion

Exploitation and forced labor are grave violations of human rights that persist in various forms in India. The right against exploitation, as enshrined in Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution, aims to protect individuals from such exploitation and uphold their dignity and freedom. However, the prevalence of forced labor and child labor in the country indicates the need for stricter enforcement of these provisions.

Efforts must be made to eradicate exploitation and punish the offenders. Additionally, the issue of child labor requires immediate attention, with a focus on providing education and opportunities for children to develop in a healthy and nurturing environment. Only by addressing these issues can the nation progress towards a more equitable and just society.

It is crucial for individuals and organizations to stay informed about legal developments and contribute to the fight against exploitation. Platforms like Legalstix Law School provide the latest updates and resources to promote knowledge and understanding of legal issues. Together, we can work towards a society free from exploitation and ensure the protection of every individual's rights and dignity.