Right Against Exploitation

Overview

The Right Against Exploitation is a unique and absolute fundamental right. Unlike the rights under Article 19, it has no exceptions — no reasonable restrictions, no public interest overrides. The Constitution treats human trafficking, forced labour, and child labour as fundamental violations of human dignity.

This right is available to all persons — citizens and non-citizens alike.

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

Text: "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."

Key Provisions

• Traffic in human beings: Includes buying, selling, or dealing in human beings for immoral purposes, slavery, or prostitution.
• Begar: Forced labour without payment. Historically practised in feudal and zamindari systems where labourers were compelled to work for landlords without wages.
• Other similar forms of forced labour: Includes bonded labour, debt bondage, and any labour extracted under coercion or threat.

Exception: Public Purpose

Article 23(2) provides a narrow exception: the State may impose compulsory service for public purposes, such as:

• Military service or conscription during war or national emergency
• Community service (e.g., social service programmes)
• Work during natural disasters or emergencies

Important: Even under this exception, the State must not discriminate on grounds of religion, race, caste, or class in making such compulsory service.

Landmark Cases

• People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982): The Supreme Court held that payment of wages less than the minimum wage amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23, because the worker has no real choice but to accept exploitative terms due to poverty and helplessness.
• Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983): The Court struck down the practice of taking unpaid labour from famine-relief workers, holding that it violated Article 23.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984): A landmark case on bonded labour. The Court laid down guidelines for identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, and held that the State has a constitutional obligation to actively search for and free bonded labourers.

Article 24: Prohibition of Child Labour

Text: "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."

Key Points

• This is an absolute prohibition — no exceptions exist.
• It applies to "any factory or mine" and "any other hazardous employment."
• The age limit was originally 14 years; the Right to Education Act (2009) and subsequent constitutional amendments have reinforced this.
• It does not prohibit child labour in non-hazardous occupations (e.g., family businesses, agriculture) — but such work is regulated by other laws.

Legislative Framework

• Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986: Prohibited employment of children in hazardous occupations and regulated conditions in non-hazardous occupations.
• Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016: Completely prohibited employment of children below 14 years in any occupation, and prohibited employment of adolescents (14–18 years) in hazardous occupations. It also made the offence cognizable (police can arrest without warrant).
• Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009: Mandates free education for children aged 6–14, making school attendance a legal right and reducing the economic pressure that drives child labour.

Landmark Cases

• M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996): The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for the elimination of child labour, including:
  • Survey and identification of child workers
  • Compulsory education for rescued children
  • Payment of compensation to parents/guardians from the employer
  • Nutritional and health support for children
• Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1983): The Court held that the State must ensure enforcement of Article 24 in all projects funded by or under the supervision of the government.

Sources