1

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s

Union of India & Others on
16 December, 1983

Name: Deep Acharya

Class: XII
Section: A
Roll No: 16
Year: 2019-20 (ISC Project)
 2

Sl.No Topics Included Pg.Nos

1. Research Question & Hypothesis 03

2. Introduction: (Supreme Court & 04

Fundamental Rights and Right to
Constitutional Remedies)

3. How has the Supreme Court protected the 05-08

breached Fundamental Right?

4. Conclusion: (Success of the Supreme Court, 09

Efficacy of the Supreme Court, Judicial
Activism)

5. Acknowledgement & Bibliography 10

 3

Research Question and Hypothesis

RQ: How has the Supreme Court protected the

Fundamental Rights of the citizens of India that has
been breached?

HYPOTHESIS: The protection of the Fundamental

Rights of the citizens of India by the Supreme Court
that have been breached.
 4

Introduction

Supreme Court of India: The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial court
and the final court of appeal under the Constitution of India, the highest
constitutional court with the power of Judicial Review. It has extensive powers in
the form of appellate and advisory jurisdictions. As the final court of appeal of the
country, it takes up appeals against the verdicts of the high courts and other courts
and tribunals. In a liberal democratic state like India Supreme Court acts as the
guardian and final interpreter of the constitution and safeguards the fundamental
rights of the citizens, settles various disputes between various government
authorities as well as the Centre v/s State or State v/s State.
Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights are those rights which are essential for
intellectual, moral and spiritual development of the individuals. As these rights are
fundamental or essentially for existence and all round development of individuals
it is called, “Fundamental Rights”. These are enshrined in Part III (Articles 12-35) of
the Constitution of India. There are six fundamental rights recognized by the
Indian constitution:
a. Right to Equality (Articles 14-18)
b. Right to Freedom (Articles 19-22)
c. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23-24)
d. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)
e. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29-30)
f. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
Right to Constitutional Remedies: right to constitutional remedies ensures the
protection of the civil rights by the means of writs (written orders) such as:
a. Habeas corpus
b. Prohibition
c. Certiorari
d. Mandamus
e. Quo Warranto
 5

How has the Supreme Court protected the breached Fundamental Right?
Case: Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India & Others on 16 December, 1983
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. Violation: Right against Exploitation.
Petitioner: Bandhua Mukti Morcha Respondent: Union of India and others
It is the fundamental right of everyone in this country, assured under the
interpretation given to Article 21 by the Supreme Court in Francis Mullen’s, to live
with human dignity free of exploitation. This right to live with human dignity,
enshrined in Article 21 derive its life and breath from the Directive Principle of
State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Article 41 and 42
and therefore it must include protection of the health and strength of workers,
men and women and of the tender age of the children against, abuse,
opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane
conditions of work and maternity relief.
Headnote: the petitioner an organization dedicated to the cause of release of
bonded laborers in the country, addressed a letter alleging:
a. There were a large number of bonded laborers from different parts of the
country who were working in some of the stone quarries situated in the
district of Faridabad, State of Haryana under “inhuman and intolerable
conditions”;
b. That a large number of them were bonded laborers;
c. That the provisions of the constitution and various social welfare laws
passed for the benefit of the said workmen were not being implemented in
regard to these laborers who were working as slaves without remuneration;
The Court treated the letter as a writ petition and appointed a commission to
inquire into the allegations of the petitioner. The commission while confirming,
pointed out in his report that:
a. The whole atmosphere in the alleged stone quarries was full of dust and
was difficult for anyone to breathe;
b. Some of the workmen were not allowed to leave the stone quarries and
were providing forced labor;
c. There was no facility of providing pure water to drink and the laborers
were compelled to drink dirty water from a nullah;
 6

d. The laborers were not having a proper shelter but were living in jhuggies
with stones piled one upon the other as walls and straw covering the top
which was too low to stand and which did not afford any protection
against sun and the rain;
e. Some of the laborers were suffering from chronic diseases;
f. No compensation was being paid to the laborers who were injured due to
accidents arising in the course of employment;
g. There were no medical facilities for medical treatment or schooling.
At the direction of the court, a socio legal investigation was also carried out and
it’s suggested measures for improving the conditions of the mine workers.
THE RESPONDENTS CONTENDED:
a. Article 32 of the constitution is not attracted to the instant case as no
fundamental right of the petitioner or of the workmen referred to in the
petition is infringed;
b. A letter addressed by a party to this court cannot be treated as a writ
petition;
c. In a proceeding under article 32, this court is not empowered to appoint
any commission or an investigating body to enquire into allegations made
in the writ petition;
d. Reports made by such commissions are based only on ex-parte statements
which have not been tested by cross-examination and therefore they have
no evidentiary value;
e. There might be forced laborers in the stone quarries and stone crushers in
the state of Haryana but they were not bonded laborers;
Rejecting all the contentions and allowing the writ petition on merits, the
Supreme Court held that:

JUDGEMENT:
a. The State Government's objection as to the maintainability of the writ
petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners is
reprehensible. If any citizen brings before the Court a complaint that a large
number of peasants or workers are bonded serfs or are being subjected to
exploitation by a few min lessees or contractors or employers or are being
denied the benefits of 69 social welfare laws, the State Government, which
is, under our constitutional scheme, charged with the mission of bringing
about a new socioeconomic order where there will biosocial and economic
 7

justice for every one equality of status and opportunity for all, would
welcome an inquiry by the court, so that if it is found that there are in fact
bonded laborers or even if the workers are not bonded in the strict sense of
the term as defined in the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act 1976 but
they are made to provide forced labor or are consigned to a life of utter
deprivation and degradation, such a situation can be set right by the State
Government.
b. Moreover, when a complaint is made on behalf of workmen that they are
held in bondage and are working and living in miserable conditions without
any proper or adequate shelter over their heads, without any protection
against sun and rain, without two square meals per day and with only dirty
water from a nullah to drink, it is difficult how such a complaint can be
thrown out on the ground that it is not violate of the fundamental right of
the workmen. It is the fundamental right of every one in this country, assured
under the interpretation given to Article 21 by this Court in Francis Mullen's
Case, to live with human dignity, free from exploitation.
c. The State is under a constitutional obligation to see that there is no violation
of the fundamental right of any person, particularly when he belongs to
the70weaker sections of the community and is unable to wage a legal battle
against a strong and powerful opponent who is exploiting him. The Central
Government is therefore bound to ensure observance of various social
welfare and labor laws enacted by Parliament for the purpose of securing to
the workmen a life of basic human dignity in compliance with the Directive
Principles of State Policy. It must also follow as a necessary corollary that the
State of Haryana in which the stone quarries are vested by reason of Haryana
Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act 1973 and which is therefore the owner of the
mines cannot while giving its mines for stone quarrying operations, permit
workmen to be denied the benefit of various social welfare and labor laws
enacted with a view to enabling them to live a life of human Dignity. The
State of Haryana must there for ensure that the mine lessees or contractors,
to whom it is giving its mines for stone quarrying operations, observe
various social welfare and labor laws enacted for the benefit of the workmen.
This is a constitutional obligation which can be enforced against the Central
Government and the State of Haryana by a writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution. [104 A-D]
 8

d. While interpreting Article 32, it must be borne in mind that our approach must
be guided not by any verbal or formalistic canons of construction but by the
paramount object and purpose for which this Article has been enacted as a
Fundamental Right in the Constitution and its interpretation must receive
illumination from the Trinity of provisions which permeate and energies the
entire Constitution namely, the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles of State Policy. Clause (1) of Article 32 confers the right to
move the Supreme Court for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, but
it does not say as to who shall have this right to move the Supreme Court nor
does it say by what proceedings the Supreme Court may be so moved. There is
no limitation in the words of Clause (1) of Article 32 that the fundamental right
which is sought to be enforced by moving the Supreme Court should be one
belonging to the person who moves the Supreme Court nor does it say that the
Supreme Court should be moved only by particular kind of proceeding.
It is clear on the plain language of clause (1) of Article 32 that whenever there is
a violation of a fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for
enforcement of such fundamental right.
e. Public Interest litigation is not in the nature of adversary litigation but it’s a
challenge and an opportunity to the government and its officers to make basic
human rights meaningful to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the
community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the
signature tune of our Constitution. When the Court entertains public interest,
litigation, it does not do so in a caviling spirit or in confrontational mood or
with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt
is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programs, legislative
as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the
handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights,
which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is thus
merely assisting in the realization of the constitutional objectives. [102 D-E, G-
H, 103 A-B]
f. Clause (1) of Article 32 says that the Supreme Court can be moved for
enforcement of a fundamental right by any ‘appropriate' proceeding. There is
no limitation in regard to the kind of proceeding envisaged in clause (1) of
Article 32 except that the proceeding must be “appropriate" and this
requirement of appropriateness must be judged in the light of the purpose for
which the proceedings is to be taken namely, enforcement of fundamental right.
 9

Conclusion
Utility of Supreme Court: Supreme Court is described to be “the most powerful
in the world having the largest jurisdiction”. The Supreme Court of India has a
wider jurisdiction than the Supreme Courts of other combines. The Supreme
Court of India is the final interpreter and the guardian of the constitution,
protector of the fundamental rights of all the citizens. The constitution of India
also assigns to the Supreme Court to give advice to the President of India on all
such matters which the President refers to it for advice. The Supreme Court has
always behaved as an impartial and independent apex court. It is still playing
an important role in the evolution of the constitution. Without, becoming a
committed judiciary, it has not in any way, tried to dictate or limit the socio-
economic development policies of the government and legitimate aspirations
of the people of India.

Utility & Importance of Fundamental Rights: part III of the constitution covers
all the traditional civil and political rights enumerated in the universal declaration
of human rights. Dr. Ambedkar described them as the most citizen part of the
constitution. Fundamental rights are deemed essential to protect the rights and
liberties of the people against the power delegated to them by the Government.
These fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of this
country since the Vedic times and they are calculated to protect the dignity of the
individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his
personality to the fullest extent.

Judicial Activism & PIL (Public Interest Litigation): Judicial Activism means a pro-
active approach of the judiciary towards prevailing socio-economic, politico-
administrative conditions in the country. Judicial Activism aims at securing a due
implementation of laws, policies, and programs by the executive. It constitutes a
bold attempt as an active guardian of law by undertaking action for checking
executive and legislative apathy towards public demand interests. PIL can be
described as a legal system in which the courts of law can initiate and enforce
action for securing any significant public or general interest which is being
adversely affected or is likely to be so by action by any agency, public or private.
 10

Acknowledgement & Bibliography

I am greatly obliged to all the sources of gen without whom this research would
not have been materialized. I am hugely grateful to my teacher for such a
wonderful miscellany which enriched our knowledge and finesse about thing that
revolve around us and without which we are not functional. This project has
elevated me to a certain degree of adherence with rights and liberties and basic
necessities that facilitate my living in this state. I know its application because of
such a choice of a project.

I am totally indebted to all the sites and books I referred to for the completion of
my research and adding an ending note of perfection to my project. They include:
a. https://indiankanoon.org
b. Wikipedia
c. ISC Political Science – K.K Ghai.
d. https://www.gktoday.in
e. YouTube

I would extend my warm gratitude to all my guides who helped me in this

project. Especially my teacher in school, and my parents.