http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/02/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  O R D E R      This writ petitionunder Article 32 of theConstitution has been  filedby way of public interest litigation seeking issue of a writof mandamus directing the Government totake steps to  stop employment  of children in Carpet Industry in the State  of Utter  Pradesh;  to  appoint  a  Committee  to investigate into  theirconditions  ofemployment;  and  to issue such  welfare directivesas are appropriate for total prohibition onemployment of  childrenbelow  14 years and directing  therespondent  togive  them  facilitieslike education, health, sanitation, nutritious food,etc.      The main  contention of  the petitioner-group  isthat employment of the children in any industry or in a hazardous industry, is violative of Article 24 ofthe Constitution and derogatory to  the mandates  contained in  Article 39(e) and (f) ofthe Constitution read with the Preamble. Pursuant to the filing  of the  writ petition, thisCourt appointedPrem Bhai and  otherto visit factories manufacturing carpets and to submit  their  findings  asto  whether  any  number  of children below the age of 14 years are working in the carpet industry etc.  The Commissioner submitted  his preliminary report.Subsequently,  by Order dated August  1, 1991,this Court  appointed  a  Committeeconsisting    of  ShriJ.P. Vergese, Ms. Gyansudha Mishra and Dr. K.P. Rajuto go around Mirzapur area  and other  places  where carbets  are  being weaved to  findout whether children are being exploited and to submit  a comprehensive report. In furtherance thereof, a comprehensive report was submitted on November 18, 1991. The matter was  heard and argumentswere concluded.The judgment was reserved  by proceedings  dated October  18, 1994. Since the judgment could not be delivered,  matter was directed to be posted  before a  Bench consisting of S. Saghir Ahmad, J. We haveheard the counsel on both sides.      The primary  contention by the petitioneron behalf of the children  below  the  age  of  14  years,  is  that the employment of children by various carpet weaverin Varanasi, Mirzapur, Jaunpur and Allahabadarea isviolative of Article 24. The reportof  theCommittee  discloses the enormity of the problem  of exploitation  to  which  the  children are subjected. Children  ranging between  5to  12 years  having

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

been kidnappedfrom the  Village Chhichhori  (Patna  Block, District Palamau  in Bihar) in January and February, 1984 in three batches  and weretaken to village Bilwari in Mirzapur District  of  U.P.  for beingengaged in  carpet  weaving centres. They  are forced  to work  allthe  day. Virtually, they are  beingtreated as  slaves  and  are  subjected  to physical torture  revealed  bythe  presence  of  marks  of violence on  their person.  TheCommission/Committee visited 42 villages  and foundin all 884 looms engaging 42% of the work force  with the children below theage of 14 years. The total number  of children are 369; 95% of them are of tender age ranging between 6 to 11 years and most of them belong to the  Scheduled Castes and   Scheduled   Tribes.   Despite Pursuation, they  couldnot  be released  andcontinue  to languish  under bondage.  TheCommission  visited  several villages, personally  contactedthe  parents ofthe children in different  places and  foundthat the children were taken againsttheir  wishes and  are wrongfully  forced to work as bonded labour  in the carpet industries. They have furnished the list  of carpet  industrieswhereat the  childrenwere found engaged.The question,  therefore,  is:whether the employment of  the children  below theage of14 years  is violative of Article 24and whether theomission on thepart of the State toprovidewelfarefacilities and opportunities deprives them  of the  constitutional mandatescontained in Articles 45, 39(e) and (f), 21,14 etc.?      Child of  today cannot  develop tobe a responsible and productive  member   of  tomorrow’s   society unless  an environment which  is conductive  to his socialand physical healthis  assured  to him.  Every  nation,  developed  or developing, links  its future  with thestatus of the child. Childhood holdsthe potential and also sets thelimit to the future development of the society. Children arethe greatest gift to the humanity.Mankindhas best hold of itself. The parentsthemselves  live for  them. They  embody the  joy of life in them and in the innocence relieving the fatigue and drudgery in  their struggle  ofdaily  life. Parents  regain peace and  happiness in the company  of the  children. The children signify  eternal optimism  in the  human being and always providethe potential  for human development. If the children are  better equipped  with a  broader human output, the society  will  feel happywith  them.  Neglecting the children meansloss to the society asa whole. If children are deprived  of theirchildhood -  socially, economically, physically andmentally -  thenationgets deprived of the potential human resources  for social progress,  economic empowerment and peace and  order, thesocial stability and goods citizenry.  The foundingfathersof the Constitution, therefore, have bestowed the  importance of the role of the child in  its best  fordevelopment.  Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, was for a head of his time in  his wisdom projected these rights in the DirectivePrinciples including the children as beneficiaries. Their  deprivation has  deleterious effect on the efficacy ofthe democracy and the rule of law.      Article 39 (e) of the Constitution  enjoins that the State shall  direct its policytowards securing the health and strength  of workers, men and women; and the children of tender age  will not  be abused;  the citizens should not be forced by economic necessity toenter avocations unsuited to their age  or strength. Article 39(f) enjoins that theStat shall direct  its policy  towards securing thatchildren are given opportunities  and facilities  todevelopin a healthy manner and  in condition  of freedom  and  dignity  and the childhood and  youth are  protected against exploitation and againstmoral  and material abandonment. Article 45 mandates

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

that  the   State  shall   endeavour  to  provide  free and compulsory education  for all  childrenuntil  they complete the age of 14years. The  period  often  years  provided thereinhas  lost its  relevance since as on date, morethan 78 million  outof  405million children, 78%of them are employed between  the age of 5 to 14 years without any basic and elementaryeducation, healthy,  access to nutrientfood and  leisure.  Article24  ofthe  Constitution  prohibits employment of  the children  infactories  etc.so  that  no child below theage of 14 yearsshall be employed to work in any factory  ormine  or  engaged  in  any  other  hazardous employment. Article  21mandates  that no  person  shall  be deprived of hislife orpersonal liberty exceptaccording to the "procedureestablished bylaw" which  this  Court has interpreted tomean "due  process of  law". The bare of the povertyis  theroot  of the child labour and they are being subjected to deprivation of their  meaningful right to life, leisure, food,shelter, medical  aid and  education.  Every child shall have without any discrimination on the ground of cast, birth, colour, sex, language, religion, social origin, property or  birth alone,  in the matter of right to health, well being,  education and  social protection.Article51-A enjoinsthat  it shallbe theduty  of  every citizen  to develop scientific  temper,  humanismand  the  spirit  of inquiryand  tostrivetoward excellence  in all  sphere of individual andcollective activities  so  that the  nation constantly  rise   to  higherlevelsof   endeavours and achievement.  Unless   facilities  and opportunities are provided to  the  children,  in particular  handicapped  by social, economic,  physical  or  mental  disabilities, the nation stands  to lose the human resources and good citizen. Education  eradicatesilliteracy  ameans  to   economic empowerment and opportunity to life  of  culture.  Article 26(1) of  Universal Declarationof Human Rightsassuresthat everyone has   right to education which  shallbe  free, at least at  the elementary  and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical andprofessional education shallbe madeavailable and higher education shall equally be  accessible to  all  on  the  basis  of  merit. Education  enables  development of  human  personality and strengthens the respect for  human  right  and fundamental freedoms.   It promotes   understanding,   tolerance and friendship among  people. It  is, therefore, the duty of the State  to   provide  facilities and  opportunities  to the children drivento child labourto develop their personality as responsible citizens.      Due to poverty, children and youthare subjected to may visible and   invisible  sufferings  and  disabilities,  in particular, health,  intellectual and social degradation and deprivation. The Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified bythe Government of Indiaon November 20,1989 recognised therights of  the child for full and harmonious development ofhis or her personality.Child should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness,love and understanding.  Thechild  should be  fullyprepared  to live an individual life in society. Article 3 providesthat in allactionsconcerning  children whether  undertaken  by public or  private social  welfare institutions,  courts  of law, administrative  authorities or  legislative bodies, the best  interest of  the   child  shall  be   the   primary consideration. Article 27(1) provides that the State parties recognise the  right of every child toa standard of living adequate for  the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.Article28 provides thus:      "1.  State Parties  recognise  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

    right of  the child  to  education,      and with  a view  to education, and      with a view to achieving this right      progressively andon thebasis of      equal opportunity, they shall,  in      particular:      (a)    Make    primary    education      compulsoryand  availablefree  to      all;      (b) Encourage  the development  of      different forms  of   secondary      education, including  general  and      vocational education,   make  them      available and  accessible to  every      child,   and    take    appropriate      measures such  as the  introduction      of freeeducation  andoffering      financialassistance  incase  of      needs;      (c)    Make     higher    education      accessibleto  allon  thebasis of      capacityby   every   appropriate      means;      (d) Make educational and vocational      information and  guidance available      and accessible to all children;      (e)  Take measures  to  encourage      regular attendance at schools  and      the reduction of drop-out rates.      2.StatesPartiesshall  take  all      appropriate measures to ensure that      school disciplineis  administered      ina  manner  consistent  with  the      child’s  human   dignityand   in      conformity  with  the present      Convention.      3.State  Parties shall promote and      encourage   international     co-      operationin  matter  relating  to      education, in  particular with  a      view   to contributingto   the      elimination   of ignorance   and      illiteracythroughout the world and      facilitating access  to  scientific      and technical  knowledge and modern      teaching methods  in  this regard.      Particularaccount shall be  taken      of  the needs of   developing      countries."      Article 31(1) recognises the rightof the child torest and leisure,  to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate tothe age of the childand  to participate freely in  cultural life and the arts. Article 32() which is material for the purpose of this case reads as under:      "1. States Parties  recognize  the      right of  the child to be protected      from economic exploitationand from      performingany  work that is likely      tobe  hazardous  or  to  interfere      with the  child’s education,  or to      beharmfulto the child’s health or      physical, mental,spiritual, moral      orsocial development.      2. States  Parties   shall   take      legislative, administrative, social

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

    and educational  measure to  ensure      the implementation of the present      article. To  this end,  and  having      regard tothe relevant  provisions      ofother international instruments.      States Parties shall in particular.      (a) Provide  for a minimum age  or      minimum  ages   for  admission   to      employment;      (b)   Provide    for    appropriate      regulation  of   the   hours   and      conditionsof employment;      (c)   Provide    for    appropriate      penaltiesor  other  sanctions  to      ensure theeffective enforcement of      the present article."      Article 36 statesthat  State parties hall protect the child against all otherforms of exploitation prejudicial to any  aspects   of  the child’s  welfare.   No doubt, the Government,  while   ratifying the   Convention   with   a reservation of progressive implementation of the governance, reminded itself of the obligations undertaken thereunder, but they  do  not  absolve  the Statein  its fundamental governance of  the imperative of Directive Principles of the Constitution renderingsocio-economic justiceto the child and their  empowerment,full  growth of their personality - socially, educationally and culturally - with a right  to leisureand  opportunity for  development of  the spirit  of reform,inquiry,  humanism andscientific temper to improve excellence - individually and collectively.      InMaharashtra  State Board  of  Secondary and  Higher Education vs.  K.S. Gandhi  [(1991) 2  SCC  716],  right  to education  atthe  secondary stagewas  held  to  be  a fundamental right.  In J.P. Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra pradesh[(1993) 1 SCC642], a Constitution Bench hasheld education uptothe of14 years  to bea fundamental right; right to  health has  been held to bea fundamental right; right to  potable water has been  heldto  be a fundamental right; meaningful  right to  life has  been  held  to  be  a fundamental right.  Thechild  is equally  entitled  to all these fundamental  rights. It would, therefore,be incumbent upon the  Stateto  provide facilitiesand  opportunity  as enjoined under Article 39(e) and (f) ofthe Constitution and to prevent  exploitation of their childhood dueto indigence and vagary.  Asstatedearlier, theiremployment -  either forcedor   voluntary-  is  occasioned  dueto  economic necessity; exploitation of their  childhood due to poverty, in particular,the poor  and the  deprived sections  of the society, is  detrimental to  democracy and social stability, unity and integrity of the nation.      Various welfare  enactments made  by the Parliament and the  appropriate   State  Legislatures are  only   teasing illusions  anda  promise  ofunreality  unless  they are effectively implemented and make  the right  to like to the child driven  to labour a reality,  meaningful and  happy. Article24  of the  Constitution prohibits employment of the child below theage of 14 yearsin any factory or mine or in any other  hazardous employment,  but it  is ahard reality that due  to poverty  child isdriven to  be employedin a factory, mine  or hazardous employment.Pragmatic, realistic and constructive  stepsand actions arerequired to be taken to enable  the child  belongingto  poor,  weaker  sections, Dalit and  Tribes and  minorities, enjoy  the childhood and developits  full  blossomed  personality  -  educationally, intellectually and  culturally -  with a  spirit of inquiry,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

reformand   enjoyment of   leisure.The   child  labour, therefore, mustbe eradicated through well-planned, poverty- focussed allievation,  development andimposition of  trade actionsin  employment may  drive the children and massthem up  into  destitution  and  other  mischievousenvironment, making them  vagrant, hard  criminals and  social risketc. Therefore,  while   exploitation  of   the  child   must  be progressively banned,  other simultaneously  alternatives to the child  should be  evolved includingproviding education, health care,  nutrient food,  shelter  and  other  means  of livelihood  with   self-respect and   dignityof   person. Immediate ban  of childlabour would beboth unrealistic and counter-productive. Banof employment of children must begin from most hazardous andintolerable activities like slavery, bonded labour,trafficking, prostitution,  pornography and dangerous formsof labour and the like.      Illiteracyhas  many adverse  effects  ina  democracy governed by  rule of  law. A  free  educated  citizen  could meaningfully exercise his political rights, discharge social responsibilities  satisfactorily   anddevelop  spirit  of tolerance and  reform. Therefore,  education is compulsory. Primaryeducation  to the  children, in particular, to the child from  poor, weaker  sections, Dalits  and Tribes and minorities is mandatory. The basic education and employment- oriented vocational  education should  be imparted  so as to empowerthe  children with  these segments of the society to retrieve  them from  poverty and,  thus,  develop  basic abilities, skills  and capabilities  tolive meaningfullife for economic  and social  empowerment. Compulsory education, therefore, to  these children  is one of the principal means and  primary   duty  of the  State  for  stability  of the democracy,  social   integration  and  to  eliminate  social tensions.      InM.C.  Mehta vs.State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 756],  this Courthas  considered the  constitutional perspectives of the abolitionof thechild labour and the child below  14years of age inthe notorious Sivakasi Match industries. Ithas mentioned in para 12 of thejudgment the number of  total workers  and the  child workers employed in the respectiveindustries in  the country.  Ithas surveyed variousenactments  which prohibit  employment of the child; the details  thereof are  not necessaryto be reiterated. In para 27,  it has  notedthe  causes forfailureto implement the constitutional  mandate andhas given various directions in that behalf. We,  therefore,  reiterate  the  directions given  therein as  feasible  inevitable.  Werespectfully agreeing with  them and reiterate the need fortheir speedy implementation.      Weare  ofthe  view that a direction needs to be given that the  Government ofIndia would convene a meeting of the concerned Ministers  ofthe respective State Governments and their PrincipalSecretaries holding concerned Department, to evolvethe   principles   ofpolicies   for progressive elimination ofemployment of  the children below the age of 14 years  in all  employments  governed by  the  respective enactments mentioned  in M.C.  Mehta’s case;  to evolvesuch steps consistent  with the  scheme laiddown inM.C. Mehta’s case, to  provide (1)  compulsory education  toall children either by  the industries itself or in co-ordination with it by theState Government  to the  children employed  in the factories,  mine   or  any   other  industry,  organised  or unorganised labour  with such  timings as  is convenient  to impartcompulsory  educations, facilities  for  secondary, vocational profession  and higher  education; (2) apartfrom education, periodical  health check-up; (3)  nutrientfood

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

etc.; (4) entrust the responsibilities for implementation of the principles. Periodical reports  ofthe progress made in that behalf  besubmitted to the Registry of this Court. The CentralGovernment is directed to convene the meeting within two months  from the  date of  receipt of  the order.  After evolving the  principles, a  copy thereof  is directed to be forwarded to the Registry of this Court.      Shri  Rakesh   Dwivedi,  learnedAdditional  Advocate Generalof U.P.and Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar,have taken notice on behalf of the States of Uttar Pradesh  and Bihar  respectively.They are directed to obtain the  copy of  the judgment  and send  the same to the respective States and to ensureimplementation of directions issued by  thisCourt  from time  to time  to implement the welfaremeasures  envisaged inthe above  orders until the principles andpolicies to  beevolvedin the aforedirected conference and implemented throughout the country.      Post this matter after three months.      The writ  petitionis, accordingly, disposed of subject to the above directions. REPORTABLE-426/97       SECTION-PIL    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA        No:F.3/Ed.B.J./103/97        New Delhi        Date : 3.5.97 CORRIGENDUM This Court’s Order in W.P.(C) No.12125 of 1984 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Unionof India & Ors. (Dated : 21.2.1997) PAGE NO.   LINENO.     FORREAD 1    (AFTER THELINE NO.6 TO BEADDED    WITH       NEW LINE)  WRIT PETITION(C)   NO. 11643 OF 1985 17     12 petition is,  petitions are