Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered a public interest litigation filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an organization working for the welfare of bonded labourers, against the Union of India and others. The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the government to stop employment of children in the carpet industry in Uttar Pradesh, to appoint a committee to investigate their conditions of employment, and to issue welfare directives for total prohibition on employment of children below 14 years with facilities like education, health, sanitation, and nutritious food. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the Supreme Court appointed Prem Bhai and others to visit factories manufacturing carpets and submit findings on whether children below 14 years were working in the carpet industry. A preliminary report was submitted. By order dated August 1, 1991, the Court appointed a committee consisting of Shri J.P. Verghese, Ms. Gyansudha Mishra and Dr. K.P. Raju to go around Mirzapur area and other places where carpets were being woven to find out whether children were being exploited and to submit a comprehensive report. The committee submitted its comprehensive report on November 18, 1991. The matter was heard, arguments concluded, and judgment was reserved on October 18, 1994. Since the judgment could not be delivered, the matter was directed to be posted before a Bench consisting of S. Saghir Ahmad, J. The Bench of K. Ramaswamy and S. Saghir Ahmad heard counsel for both sides. The committee report disclosed the enormity of the problem of exploitation. Children ranging between 5 to 12 years had been kidnapped from Village Chhichhori (Patna Block, District Palamau in Bihar) in January and February 1984 in three batches and taken to village Bilwari in Mirzapur District of Uttar Pradesh for being engaged in carpet weaving centres. They were forced to work all day, virtually treated as slaves, and subjected to physical torture as revealed by marks of violence on their person. The committee visited 42 villages and found in all 884 looms engaging 42% of the work force with children below the age of 14 years. The total number of such children was 369; 95% of them were of tender age ranging between 6 to 11 years and most of them belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Despite persuasion, they could not be released and continued to languish under bondage. The committee personally contacted parents of children in different places and found that children were taken against their wishes and wrongfully forced to work as bonded labour in carpet industries. The core legal issues before the Court were whether employment of children below 14 years in carpet industry violated Article 24 of the Constitution and whether the omission on the part of the State to provide welfare facilities and opportunities deprived them of the constitutional mandates contained in Articles 45, 39(e) and 39(f), 21, 14 etc. The petitioner contended that employment of children in any industry or hazardous industry is violative of Article 24 and derogatory to mandates contained in Article 39(e) and 39(f) read with the Preamble. The Court reasoned that child of today cannot develop to be a responsible and productive member of tomorrow's society unless an environment conducive to social and physical health is assured. It referred to Articles 39(e), 39(f), 45, 21, 14, 51-A of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by India on November 20, 1989. The Court noted that poverty is the root of child labour, causing deprivation of meaningful right to life, leisure, food, shelter, medical aid and education. Relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, and J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 642, the Court held that education up to the age of 14 years is a fundamental right. It held that employment of children below 14 years in carpet industry violates Article 24 and that the State is constitutionally obliged under Articles 39(e), 39(f), 45, 21 and 14 to enforce total prohibition on child labour and provide welfare facilities including education, health, sanitation, nutritious food, and protection from exploitation. The Court emphasized that international obligations reinforce constitutional duties to protect children from hazardous labour and that the State cannot derogate from these obligations due to progressive implementation reservations. The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the State to take steps for identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded child labourers and to ensure their right to education and welfare.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Child Labour - Article 24, Constitution of India - Employment of children below 14 years in carpet industry is hazardous and prohibited - Committee found 369 children aged 6-11 years working in carpet looms in Uttar Pradesh, many from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, subjected to forced labour and physical torture - Held that employment of children below 14 years in any factory or hazardous employment violates Article 24 and State is constitutionally obligated to enforce prohibition and rescue bonded child labourers (Paras Not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Directive Principles of State Policy - Articles 39(e) and 39(f), Constitution of India - State must ensure health and strength of workers and protect children from exploitation - The court emphasized that children of tender age must not be abused and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and moral and material abandonment - Held that State policy must secure opportunities and facilities for children to develop in healthy manner with freedom and dignity, and that poverty cannot justify denial of these constitutional guarantees (Paras Not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Right to Education - Article 45 read with Article 21, Constitution of India - Free and compulsory education for children until age 14 is a fundamental right - Followed Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi and J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held education up to age 14 and secondary stage to be fundamental rights - Held that State must provide free and compulsory education to children up to age 14, and denial of education due to child labour violates Article 21 right to life with dignity (Paras Not mentioned). D) International Law - Convention on the Rights of the Child - Article 32, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 - Protection from economic exploitation and hazardous work - The Convention, ratified by India on November 20, 1989, requires states to set minimum ages for employment, regulate work conditions, and impose penalties for violations - Held that international obligations reinforce constitutional duties to protect children from hazardous labour and to provide education and leisure, and State cannot derogate from these obligations due to progressive implementation reservations (Paras Not mentioned). E) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles - Articles 14, 21, 51-A, Constitution of India - Right to life, equality, and citizen duties - The court emphasized that every child has right to health, well-being, education, and social protection without discrimination, and citizens have duty to develop scientific temper and humanism - Held that State must provide facilities and opportunities to children driven to child labour to develop their personality as responsible citizens, and that eradicating illiteracy through education is essential for economic empowerment (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether employment of children below the age of 14 years in carpet industry is violative of Article 24 of Constitution of India and whether omission on the part of the State to provide welfare facilities and opportunities deprives them of the constitutional mandates contained in Articles 45, 39(e) and 39(f), 21, 14 etc.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that employment of children below 14 years in carpet industry is hazardous and violative of Article 24 of Constitution of India. The State is constitutionally obliged under Articles 39(e), 39(f), 45, 21 and 14 to enforce total prohibition on child labour and to provide welfare facilities including education, health, sanitation, nutritious food, and protection from exploitation. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to the State to take immediate steps for identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded child labourers and to ensure their right to education and welfare.
Law Points
- Employment of children below 14 years in any factory or hazardous employment violates Article 24
- State must secure health and strength of workers and protect children from exploitation under Article 39(e) and 39(f)
- State shall endeavour to provide free and compulsory education for all children until age 14 under Article 45
- right to education upto age 14 is a fundamental right under Article 21
- every child has right to health
- education and social protection without discrimination
- international obligations under Convention on the Rights of the Child reinforce constitutional duties to protect children from hazardous labour
