Constitution of Bharat: Article 23: Part 5

 

Here are several landmark judgments that provide a provision-wise interpretation of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits traffic in human beings, begar, and other similar forms of forced labor:

Clause 1 - Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings, Begar, and Forced Labor

1. People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982):
   • Interpretation: This case is pivotal for expanding the scope of Article 23(1). The Supreme Court held that payment of wages below the minimum wage for work on public projects like the Asiad Games constituted forced labor. This judgment interpreted that even if wages are paid, if they are below the minimum, it falls under "begar" or forced labor.
   • Significance: This case set a precedent that the right against exploitation includes protection against economic exploitation through low wages.
2. Sanjit Roy vs. State of Rajasthan (1983):
   • Interpretation: The court ruled that paying workers involved in famine relief work wages below the minimum wage was a violation of Article 23. It emphasized that the state cannot exploit the desperate situation of famine workers.
   • Significance: It reinforced that the state must ensure fair wages, even in emergency situations, to avoid practices akin to forced labor.
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984):
   • Interpretation: This case dealt with bonded laborers in mines and quarries, where the court observed that any form of labor where a person is forced to work to pay off debts or under exploitative conditions is against Article 23. The court directed the state to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded laborers.
   • Significance: It highlighted the application of Article 23 in real-world scenarios of bonded labor, pushing for active governmental intervention.
4. Deena vs. Union of India (1983):
   • Interpretation: This case addressed the issue of work by prison inmates. The court held that prisoners are entitled to reasonable wages for their work; otherwise, it would amount to forced labor under Article 23.
   • Significance: It extended the protection against forced labor to include prisoners, ensuring they receive fair remuneration for their work.
5. Vishal Jeet vs. Union of India (1990):
   • Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the timely and fair payment of wages is an integral part of the prohibition on forced labor. Delayed or non-payment was seen as a form of exploitation.
   • Significance: This judgment highlighted that the right to wages is crucial to prevent forced labor, linking Article 23 with labor rights more broadly.

Clause 2 - Exceptions for Compulsory Service

• There are fewer direct judicial interpretations specifically on Article 23(2) since it allows for compulsory service for public purposes without discrimination based on religion, race, caste, or class. However, general interpretations of Article 23 often touch upon this:
  
  
  • Implied in Judgements: The above cases implicitly recognize that while compulsory service for public purposes is allowed, it must not morph into exploitation or discrimination, which would violate the spirit of Article 23(1).

These judgments collectively interpret and enforce Article 23 by extending the prohibition to various forms of labor exploitation, ensuring that the constitutional mandate against forced labor and human trafficking is upheld in practice. They also underscore the state's responsibility to not only legislate against such practices but also to actively work towards their eradication.