Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with a public interest litigation filed by lawyer M.C. Mehta under Article 32 alleging gross violation of children's fundamental right against exploitation guaranteed by Article 24 in the match and fireworks industries of Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu. The petition highlighted that Sivakasi was one of the worst offenders in employing child labour in hazardous occupations. Earlier, on 31 October 1990, the Court had disposed of the petition with directions and noted that as on 31 December 1985, there were 221 registered match factories employing 27,338 workmen, of whom 2941 were children. The Court had constituted a committee to oversee the directions. Subsequently, after an accident in a Sivakasi cracker factory, the Court took suo motu cognizance. The Tamil Nadu Government filed a counter stating that 39 persons had died. On 14 August 1991, the Court appointed an advocates committee comprising R.K. Jain, Indira Jaisingh and K.C. Dua to visit the area and make a comprehensive report. The committee submitted its report on 11 November 1991 containing detailed recommendations, including that the State should ensure children are not employed in fireworks factories, that children employed in match factories for packing must work in separate premises, that work should not exceed six hours a day, that transport, recreation, socialisation and education facilities should be provided, that employers should arrange basic diet or the government should extend the one-meal-a-day programme, that piece-rate wages should be abolished and monthly wages paid, that all workers should be brought under an insurance scheme, that a welfare fund with employer and state contributions should be created, and that a National Commission for children's welfare should be set up to prepare a scheme for child labour abolition in a phased manner. Employer associations filed affidavits containing general denials and objections to the committee's recommendations. The Court put on record its appreciation for the commendable work done by the committee. The judgment also referred to several earlier reports on child labour, including the Gurupadaswamy Committee report of 1979, the Labour Ministry survey report, reports on Sivakasi working conditions, and data showing the magnitude of child labour across India. The Court observed that despite constitutional provisions and legislative enactments, child labour remained a big problem and had spread far and wide. The available text ends before the final operative directions, but the Court's reasoning emphasised the constitutional duty to protect children and the need for comprehensive welfare measures.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles - Prohibition of Child Labour - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 24, 39(f), 45 - The Constitution prohibits employment of children below fourteen years in hazardous occupations and requires the State to secure opportunities for healthy development and free and compulsory education - Held that despite these constitutional provisions child labour remains intractable and the Sivakasi match and fireworks industries grossly violate Article 24 requiring judicial intervention under Article 32 (Paras 2-3A). B) Public Interest Litigation - Suo Motu Cognizance and Expert Committee - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 - The Supreme Court can take cognizance of child labour violations and appoint an advocates committee to investigate and make comprehensive recommendations - Held that the committee's report on Sivakasi child labour including prohibition in fireworks factories, separate packing premises, six-hour work, transport, recreation, diet, monthly wages, insurance and welfare fund was appreciated; employer objections were general denials (Paras 4-7). C) Labour Law - Welfare Measures for Child Workers - Match and Fireworks Industries - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 24, 39(f) - Employment of children in hazardous match and fireworks factories requires strict regulatory and welfare measures including phased abolition and national commission - Held that reports of various committees and surveys show the problem is widespread and requires integrated strategy for elimination (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether employment of children in hazardous match and fireworks industries at Sivakasi violates Article 24 of the Constitution and what remedial directions are necessary to protect child workers and eliminate child labour.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court, per Hansaria J., recorded that child labour in Sivakasi was a gross violation of Article 24, appreciated the committee report and its recommendations, and noted that employer objections were general denials. The available judgment text ends before the final operative directions; therefore the complete final order is not extracted.
Law Points
- Children have fundamental right against exploitation under Article 24
- employment in hazardous occupations prohibited
- State duty to provide free and compulsory education under Article 45
- children must be given opportunities to develop in healthy manner under Article 39(f)
- public interest litigation can enforce child rights
- judicial directions and expert committee reports guide welfare and elimination of child labour
