Rights against Exploitation
Articles 23 and 24: no traffic in human beings, begar or forced labour, and no child below fourteen in a factory, mine or hazardous work
In one minute
Article 23 bans traffic in human beings, begar and other forced labour. Article 24 bans the work of children below fourteen in factories, mines and other hazardous jobs. Both protect people who cannot bargain on equal terms.
Exams ask what "force" means in Article 23, who can be sued under it, and why Article 24 stops at hazardous work. A child of fifteen in a house is a common problem question.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Long answer (10 to 15 marks)
Legal provision
- Article 23(1): traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited. Any contravention is an offence punishable in accordance with law.
- Article 23(2): the State may impose compulsory service for public purposes. In doing so, it must not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class.
- Article 24: 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.
- Article 21A: free and compulsory education for children of six to fourteen years, inserted by the 86th Amendment (1 April 2010).
- Article 39(e) and (f): the State must direct its policy so that the tender age of children is not abused. Children must get opportunities to develop in freedom and dignity and be protected against exploitation.
Meaning and definition
Traffic in human beings means dealing in people as if they were goods. Begar is work taken from a person without pay. The Constitution does not define forced labour either, so the Court has given it a wide meaning. Article 23 names no "State", so it can be used against a private person as well. Most rights in Part III bind only the State (Article 12).
The two Articles work differently. Article 23 asks whether the work was forced. Article 24 asks only about the child's age and the kind of work. These Fundamental Rights sit in Part III beside the freedoms, but they protect the weak from private power.
- Rights against Exploitation
- Article 23: every personTraffic in human beings; begar and other forced labour
- Article 24: child below fourteenWork in a factory, a mine or other hazardous employment
Detailed explanation
Step 1: what Article 23 covers
Article 23(1) prohibits two things. One is traffic in human beings, which includes the sale of women and children and forced prostitution. The other is begar and similar forced labour. Parliament made both punishable. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 deals with trafficking. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 abolishes bonded labour, a system where a person works to repay a debt that can never be repaid.
Example. A brick-kiln owner advances Rs 5,000 to a landless family for a medical emergency. The family must work at the kiln until the debt is cleared. The owner pays almost nothing and adds new charges for food and tools. The family cannot leave. This is bonded labour.
Step 2: "force" includes economic pressure
In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), a democratic-rights group found that workers on the Asian Games construction in Delhi were paid below the minimum wage. The Court read "force" in Article 23 widely. Force is not only physical. It also covers compulsion caused by poverty and want. A worker who accepts less than the minimum wage out of hunger is doing forced labour.
In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), workers on a famine-relief road were paid below the minimum wage. The Court struck down the law that exempted such work from the labour laws.
Step 3: the State's duty to find and free bonded labourers
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984), a letter about stone-quarry workers in Faridabad, Haryana was treated as a writ petition under Article 32. The Court appointed commissioners. Where forced labour is shown, the Court presumed the worker was bonded unless the employer or the State proved otherwise. The State must identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers.
Step 4: the exception in Article 23(2)
The State may impose compulsory service for public purposes, such as national service. It must not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class. Service imposed on one caste alone would fail.
Step 5: what Article 24 covers
Article 24 is short and absolute. A child below fourteen cannot be employed in a factory or a mine. Nor can the child be engaged in any other hazardous employment. No proof of force is needed, and the parents' consent does not save the employer. The word "hazardous" is not defined in the Article.
The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 gives Article 24 its detail. The 2016 amendment, in force from 1 September 2016, bars the employment of a child below fourteen in any occupation or process. A child may help the family or work as an artist, but only outside school hours or in vacations. A young person of fourteen to eighteen is an adolescent. The Act bars adolescents only from hazardous occupations and processes.
Example. Anil, thirteen, is sent by his parents to a small unlicensed firecracker unit. He handles explosive chemicals. His parents agreed and he is willing. Article 24 still applies, because he is below fourteen and the work is hazardous.
Step 6: Article 24 and the right to education
Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education from six to fourteen. A child kept out of hazardous work is meant to be in school. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) ordered schooling for children taken out of work, well before Article 21A was inserted.
Don't confuse: Article 23 and Article 24
| Point | Article 23 | Article 24 |
|---|---|---|
| Who is protected | Every person, adult or child | A child below fourteen only |
| What is prohibited | Traffic in human beings; begar and other forced labour | Work in a factory, a mine or other hazardous employment |
| Is force a test | Yes, including economic pressure | No; age and the kind of work decide |
| Key law | Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 | Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 |
Inside Article 23. A contractor pays construction workers half the minimum wage because they have no other work. This is forced labour, even though the workers agreed.
Just outside Article 23. A government drafts citizens for compulsory national service on equal terms. Article 23(2) allows it.
Common mistakes
- Saying Article 23 covers only physical force. The Court included economic pressure.
- Saying Article 23 can be used only against the State. It can be used against a private person.
- Saying Article 24 bans all work by all children. It bars factory, mine and hazardous work, for a child below fourteen.
- Applying Article 24 to a child of fifteen. Article 24 stops at fourteen.
- Saying parents' consent can make hazardous work lawful. It cannot.
Apply it
Problem
Sunita, aged fifteen, works as a domestic servant in a house in Hyderabad. She is paid nothing and cannot leave because her father owes the employer Rs 40,000. On what grounds can the employer be proceeded against?
Issue. Does Article 24 or Article 23 protect Sunita?
Rule. Article 24 covers a child below fourteen in a factory, mine or hazardous work. Article 23 bans begar and other forced labour for every person, and "force" includes economic pressure (People's Union for Democratic Rights).
Application. Sunita is above fourteen and domestic work is not hazardous, so Article 24 does not apply. She works without pay to clear her father's debt, which is bonded labour.
Conclusion. The employer can be proceeded against under Article 23 and the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, not under Article 24.
Leading case laws
- People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
Facts. Workers on the Asian Games construction in Delhi were paid less than the minimum wage.
Principle. "Force" in Article 23 includes economic compulsion. Paying below the minimum wage can be forced labour.
Why it matters. It gave Article 23 a wide meaning and showed it reaches private contractors.
- Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983)
Facts. Workers on famine-relief road work were paid below the minimum wage under an exemption law.
Principle. The Court struck down the exemption.
Why it matters. The State, too, cannot pay below the minimum wage to those who work out of need.
- Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
Facts. A letter about stone-quarry workers in Faridabad, Haryana was treated as a writ petition under Article 32.
Principle. Once forced labour is shown, bondage is presumed. The State must find, free and rehabilitate bonded labourers.
Why it matters. It also widened public interest litigation.
- M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)
Facts. A public-interest petition on child work in the match and fireworks industry of Sivakasi.
Principle. Children cannot work in the hazardous manufacturing process. Packing is allowed only in separate premises. An employer who breaks the law pays Rs 20,000 per child into a welfare fund.
Why it matters. It is the leading case on Article 24.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer (Article 23)
- Quote Article 23(1) and (2).
- Explain the two prohibitions.
- State that "force" includes economic pressure (PUDR).
- Note that it can be used against private persons.
10-mark answer
- Text of Articles 23 and 24.
- Article 23: meaning, PUDR, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the two statutes.
- Article 23(2): compulsory service.
- Article 24: age, the three kinds of work, the 2016 Act, M.C. Mehta.
- Apply to the facts: age, kind of work, force.
- Conclusion: which Article applies.
Key points to remember
- Article 23(1) bans traffic in human beings and begar and other forced labour; breach is an offence.
- Force includes economic pressure; below-minimum wage can be forced labour (PUDR, 1982).
- Article 23 can be used against a private person.
- Article 23(2): compulsory public service is allowed, without discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class.
- Article 24: no child below fourteen in a factory, a mine or hazardous work.
- M.C. Mehta (1996): no children in the manufacturing process of match and fireworks units.
- The 2016 amendment bars child work in every occupation but allows family help outside school hours.
Quick self-test
1. Does Article 23 cover only physical force?
No. Force includes economic pressure, so work for less than the minimum wage can be forced labour.
2. Does Article 24 protect a child of fifteen?
No. It protects a child below fourteen.
3. Which case ordered the removal of children from the manufacturing process of match units?
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996).