1

Panjab University, Chandigarh

Project of Constitutional Law

ARTICLE 22,23,24

Submitted by: Rakshit

Roll no. 235/17
B.com LL.B. Semester 4th
 2

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my professor “Dr. Shruti Bedi” for giving me this opportunity to work
on this topic, who also helped me in completing my project. While working on this topic I
came to know about so many new facts

And also I would like to express my gratitude to all the elders of the family. I also extend my
sincere thanks to my family and my friends for their encouragement and support.

(Rakshit)
B.com LLB, Semester- 4th
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page no.
1. Introduction (Article 22) 5
2. Rights of arrested person under ordinary laws 6
3. Preventive Detention 9
4. Rights of arrested person under Preventive Detention laws 9
5. Introduction (Article 23 & 24) 15
6. Begar 16
7. Employment of Children 17
8. Bibliography 20
 4

TABLE OF CASES
Page No.
1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 18
2. Chandra v. State of Rajasthan 16
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 7
4. Jayanarain Sukul v. State of W.B. 13
5. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 6
6. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu 18
7. Kahason Thangkhul v. Simirei Shailie 16
8. State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat 17
9. Vishal Jeet v. Union of India 15
 5

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION

(ARTICLE 22)
Introduction:

According to Article 21 no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. This means that a person can be deprived of his
life or personal liberty provided his deprivation was brought about in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law. Article 22 provides those procedural requirements which must
be adopted and included in any procedure enacted by the Legislature. If these procedural
requirements are not complied with, it would then be deprivation of personal liberty which is
not in accordance with the procedure established by law. Thus Article 22 prescribes the
minimum procedural requirements that must be included in any law enacted by the
Legislature in accordance with which a person may be deprived of his life and personal
liberty. Article 22 deals with two separate matters;

(1) persons arrested under the ordinary law of crimes; and

(2) persons detained under the law of ‘Preventive Detention’.

The First two clauses of Article 22 deal with detention under the ordinary law of crimes and
lay down the procedure which has to be followed when a man is arrested and the remaining
clauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) deal with persons detained under a preventive detention law and
lay down the procedure which is to be followed when a person is detained under that law.

Who can claim Article 22:

The safeguards contained in Article 22 can be claimed by every person whether a citizen or a
non-citizen. Even a foreigner can claim these safeguards. However, these safeguards are not
available to an enemy alien. (i.e., a national of a country with whom India is at war).
 6

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ARREST OR DETENTION MADE UNDER THE

ORDINARY LAW RELATING TO COMMISSION OF OFFENCES [Article 22(1) &
(2)]:

Clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 22 guarantee four rights on a person who is arrested for any
offence under an ordinary law-

(a) the right to be informed ‘as soon as may be’ of ground of arrest.

(b) the right to consult and to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice,

(c) the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours,

(d) the freedom from detention beyond the said period except by the order of the Magistrate.

(a) The rights to be informed of grounds of arrest:

Clause (1) of Article 22 requires that any person who is arrested should be informed of the
grounds of such arrest.

This is necessary to enable the arrested person to know the grounds of his arrest and to
prepare for his defence, Article 22 is in the nature of a directive to the arresting authorities to
disclose the grounds of arrest of a person immediately. The words used in Article 22 (1) are
‘as soon as may be’ which means as nearly as is reasonable in the circumstances of a
particular case.1 If the grounds of arrest is delayed it must be justified by ‘reasonable
circumstances’. This right of being informed of the grounds of arrest is not dispensed with by
offering to make bail to the arrested person.2

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.3 the Supreme Court has laid down guidelines governing
arrest of a person during the investigation. This is intended to strike a balance between the
needs of police on one hand and the protection of human rights of citizens from oppression
and injustice at the hands of law enforcing agencies. The Court has held that person is not
liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some
reasonable justification in the opinion of the police officer effecting the arrest that such arrest
was necessary and justified.

1
Tarapada De v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1951 SC 174
2
State of M.P. v. Shobharam, AIR 1966 SC 1910
3
(1994) SCC 260
 7

(b) Right to Consult and to be Defended by a Legal Practitioner:

Clause (1) of Article 22 further provides that the person arrested "shall not be denied the right
to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice".

The right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice is guaranteed
with a view to enable the detenue to prepare for his defence. This right belongs to the
arrested person not only at the pre-trial stage, at the stage his first production before the
Magistrate,4 but also at the trial before a criminal Court or before a special tribunal and
whether the arrest is made under the general law or under a special Statute.5

It has been said to be the duty and obligation of the Magistrate, before whom the accused is
first produced, to make the accused aware of his right and to provide him a lawyer and any
failure of his duty makes the Magistrate liable for departmental proceedings.6

In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,7 the Supreme Court has held that
it is the constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and
secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado
situation, to have free legal services provided to him by the State and the State is under
constitutional duty to provide a lawyer to such person if the needs of justice so required. If
free legal services are not provided the trial itself may be vitiated as contravening Art. 21.

(c) Right to be Produced before the Nearest Magistrate:

Clause (2) of Article 22 provides that "every person who is arrested and detained in custody
shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such
arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of
the Magistrate".

The right to be produced before the nearest Magistrate is guaranteed with a view to avoid any
miscarriage of justice. It is with the object to correct and approve the executive action of
arresting a person. It has been held that the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to
determine whether the arrest is regular or legal and in accordance with the law. The
Magistrate, therefore, while authorising the extension of arrest must not act mechanically. 8

4
Mohd. A.M.A. Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3565.
5
State of M.P. v. Shobharam, AIR 1966 SC 1910.
6
Ibid.
7
AIR 1979 SC 1377.
8
In Re Madhu Limaye, AIR 1969 SC 1014.
 8

He has to judicially scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied can order the detention of the
accused in police custody.9

The “nearest magistrate” means the magistrate found to be nearest to the place of arrest. It
is immaterial whether the Magistrate has or does not have jurisdiction to try the case or that
the Magistrate sits in a court or not, at the time the arrested person is produced before him.10
It has been strongly urged by the Supreme Court that the State and police authorities should
see to that, this constitutional and legal requirement to produce an arrested person before a
Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, must be scrupulously observed.11

(d) Right not to be Detained in Custody Beyond 24 hours Without the Authority of the
Magistrate:

Clause (2) of Article 22 mandates that the arrested person shall not be detained in custody
beyond the said period of 24 hours without the authority of a Magistrate.

It would mean that if there is failure to produce the arrested person before the nearest
Magistrate within 24 hours, it would make the detention illegal.12

Exceptions to Clause (1) and Clause (2) of Article 22 [Article 22(3)]:

Clause (3) of Article 22 provides that the safeguards guaranteed by Clauses (1) and (2) of
Article 22 are not available to the following persons -

A. Any person who for the time being is an enemy alien;

B. Any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive
detention.

In case of a person arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention,
special provisions are contained in Clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22, which are discussed
below.

9
C.B.I. v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, AIR 1992 SC 1768.
10
Ibid.
11
Khatri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 928.
12
Ganpati K. Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
 9

PREVENTIVE DETENTION:

”Preventive detention” means the detention of a person without trial in such circumstances
that the evidence in possession of the authority is not sufficient to make a legal charge or to
secure the conviction of the detenu by legal proof, but may still be sufficient to justify his
detention.13 Preventive detention differs from imprisonment on conviction or during
investigation of the crime of an accused, which permits separate classification of the detenu
under preventive detention. It is to prevent breach of law while imprisonment on conviction
during investigation is subsequent to the commission of the crime.14 The object of preventive
detention is not to punish, but to intercept to prevent the detenu from doing something
prejudicial to the State or to prevent an individual from achieving the particular object. The
satisfaction of the concerned authority is a subjective satisfaction in such a matter.

The justification for preventive detention is suspicion or reasonable apprehension, reasonable

probability, of the impending commission of an act prejudicial to the State. The object is to
prevent the abuse of freedom by anti-social and subversive elements.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ARREST OR DETENTION MADE UNDER A LAW

PROVIDING FOR PREVENTIVE DETENTION [Articles 22(4) to (7)]:

Clauses (4) to (7) of Article 22 contain the procedural requirements which are to be complied
with when a person is detained under a law providing for preventive detention. These are as
follows -

(a) No detention beyond three months unless such detention is approved by the Advisory
Board;

(b) The detaining authority must communicate, as soon as may be, to the detenu, the grounds
for such detention;

(c) The detenu must be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against
the order of detention;

(d) No detention beyond the maximum period prescribed under a law made by Parliament
under Clause 7(b).

13
District Collector v. Shaik Hasmath Beebi, AIR 2001 SC 1681.
14
Ankul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2814.
 10

(a) No detention beyond three months without review by Advisory Board [Article
22(4)(a)]:

Sub-clause(a) of Clause (4) of Article 22 provides that a law providing for preventive
detention shall not authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months
except in the following cases -

(a) Where an Advisory Board, before the expiration of the said period of three months,
reports that in its opinion, there is sufficient cause for such detention.15

(b) Where a person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by
Parliament under Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Clause (7).16

Clause (4)(a) provides a limitation on legislative power as to the period of preventive

detention. It prohibits against any law providing for detention for more than three months
without a provision for an Advisory Board. A provision for an Advisory Board is, therefore,
not necessary where the detention is for less than three months.17 In case the detention is to
continue for more than three months, Clause (4)(a) of Article 22 requires that the detention
must be confirmed by the Advisory Board saying that there is sufficient cause for such
detention. The opinion of an Advisory Board confirming the detention must be obtained
before the expiry of the first three months of detention. The order of confirmation passed after
three months of the date of detention, though the opinion of the Advisory Board had been
received, would be invalid and violative of Article 22(4)(a).18

A detention order can be issued in respect of a person already in custody in respect of a

criminal case. provided the detaining authority was aware of this fact and satisfies that there
is very likelihood of he being released on bail.19

Advisory Board:

The function of the Advisory Board is merely to report on the point whether there is
sufficient cause for the detention.20 It is to provide a safeguard against misuse of the power of
preventive detention. The Board is to judge whether the detention is justified and not

15
Sub-clause (a) of Clause (4) of Article 22.
16
Sub-clause (b) of Clause (4) of Article 22.
17
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
18
S. Mukharji v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 SC 1356.
19
H.K. Singh v. State of Manipur, AIR 2012 SC 2002.
20
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710.
 11

arbitrary. Its duty is to report about the sufficiency of the detention. The Board is not
concerned as to how long the person should be detained.

Constitution of the Advisory Board:

Clause (4)(a) of Article 22 provides that the Advisory Board shall consist of persons who are,
or have been qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court. It is left for the executive
to constitute the Advisory Board.

The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 proposed the following changes in
the composition of the Advisory Board21-

1. The Board is to be constituted in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief

Justice of the appropriate High Court.

2. The Board shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other members.

3. The Chairman shall be a serving Judge of the appropriate High Court and the other
members shall be serving or retired Judges of a High Court.

The Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978, thus, proposed that the Advisory Board should be an
independent and impartial body, free from executive control. But, these changes have not yet
been brought into force.

Procedure before the Advisory Board:

Clause 7(c) of Article 22 provides that Parliament may, by law, prescribe the procedure to be
followed by the Advisory Board in an inquiry under Article 22(4)(a). It has, however, been
held that the Board submitting its report without hearing the detenu and examining his
witness violates Article 22. Further, that the failure to produce the detenu before the Board,
due to the wilful refusal of the detenu himself is equally Violative of these provisions.22 But,
the detenu cannot claim to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Board. However,
if the detaining authority or the Government takes the aid of a legal practitioner or adviser
before the Board, the detenu must be allowed the same facility.23 The detenu cannot claim the
right of cross-examination before the Advisory Board.24

21
Section 3 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment), 1978.
22
State of Punjab v. Sukhpal Singh, AIR 1990 SC 231.
23
Phillipa Anne Duke v. State of T.N., AIR 1982 SC 1178.
24
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710.
 12

(b) Right of the Detenu to be informed of the Grounds of Detention:

Clause (5) of Article 22 imposes an obligation on the Government to communicate to the

detenu the grounds of detention. For the compliance of this requirement, the grounds of
detention should be very clear and easily understandable. There must be a rational
connection between the grounds stated by the government and the object which are to be
prevented under the law providing for preventive detention.25 Thus, where the grounds of
detention related to publication of a defamation of a Judge of a High Court and had nothing
to do with the purpose of public order or other objects of the Statute, the grounds were
irrelevant which would invalidate the detention.26

In Tarannum v. Union of India,27 the Supreme Court distinguished between “maintenance

of public order” and “maintenance of only law and order”. Holding that acts of looting gold
and cash were not prejudicial to maintenance of “public order” but mere relating to only “law
and order”, the Apex Court quashed the order of detention made under the National Security
Act, 1960.

(c) Right of the Detenu to Make a Representation against the Order of Detention
[Article 22(5)]:

Clause (5) of Article 22 enjoins the detaining authority to afford the detenu the earliest
opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention. The right to make a
representation implies that the detenu should have such information as will enable him to
make a representation. All the basic and material facts which influenced the detaining
authority to order detention, must be communicated to the detenu. If there are any statements
and documents referred to in the grounds, they must also be communicated to him.28 Unless
such information is furnished to him, it is not possible for the detenu to make the
representation. In that case, the right guaranteed under Article 22(5) will be only illusory but
not a real right at all.29

Non-communication to the detenu that he has right to make representation to the detaining
authority amounts to infraction of his right under Article 22(5).30

25
Darpan Kumar Sharma v. State of T.N., AIR 2003 SC 971.
26
Sodhi Shamsher Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 276.
27
AIR 1998 SC 1013.
28
State of Maharashtra v. Zubair Haji Qasim, AIR 2008 SC 2825.
29
Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC 3051.
30
State of Maharashtra v. S.S. Acharya, AIR 2000 SC 250.
 13

Article 22(5) mandates that the detention order must be executed and served to the detenu
without delay.

The right to make a representation does not carry with it the right to be heard by an
independent judicial administrative or advisory tribunal. It also does not include in it the right
to be heard orally or an oral interview in respect of the representation. It is implicit in Article
22(5) that the representation must be a written representation communicated through the jail
authorities or through any other mode which the detenu thinks fit.31

Again, the right to make a representation does not give a right to be represented by a lawyer,
except when its denial prejudices him.32

Article 22(5) permits the detenu to make a representation. But the constitution is silent as to
the person to whom it has to be made or how it has to be dealt with. A law of preventive
detention which makes no provision on these points is not, therefore, unconstitutional.33

In Jayanarain Sukul v. State of W.B,34 the Supreme Court laid down the following four
principles which are to be followed in regard to representation of the detenu :

(1) The appropriate authority is bound to give an opportunity to the detenu to make a
representation and to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible.
(2) The consideration of the representation of the detenu by the appropriate authority is
entirely independent of any action by the Advisory Board including the consideration
of the representation of the detenu by the Advisory Board.
(3) It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken
by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the
Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. However, Where the
delay in consideration/disposal of the representation is unavoidable and is
satisfactorily explained, it would not be fatal and would not prejudice the detenu.35
(4) The appropriate Government is to express its opinion and judgment on the
representation before sending the case along with the detenu’s representation to the
Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government releases the detenu, the Government
will not send the case along with the detenu’s representation to the Advisory Board.

31
Devji Vallabhbhai v. Administrator, Goa, Daman & Div, AIR 1982 SC 1029.
32
State of A.P. v. B. Subbarajama, AIR 1989 SC 389.
33
Dist. Collector v. Shaik Hasmath Beebi, AIR 2001 SC 1681.
34
AIR 1970 SC 675.
35
D. Anuradha v. Joint Secretary, (2006) 5 SCC 142.
 14

If the Government does not release the detenu, it will send the case to the Board. If,
thereafter, the Advisory Board will express an opinion in favour of release of the
detenu, the Government Will release the detenu. If the Advisory Board will express
any opinion against the release of the detenu, the Government may still exercise the
power to release the detenu.

Exception: Under Article 22(6) disclosure of facts which are considered to be against public
interest may not be furnished to the detenu. Hence it follows that both the obligations to
furnish particulars and the duty to consider whether the disclosure of any facts involved
therein is against public interest are vested in the detaining authority, not in any other.36

(d) No Detention Beyond the Maximum Period Prescribed Under a Law Made by
Parliament under Clause 7(a) [Article 22(4)(b)]:

Proviso to Clause 4(a) of Article 22 provides that a person detained under a preventive
detention law shall not be detained beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made
by Parliament under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (7) of Article 22.

Clause (7) of Article 22 confers power on Parliament to make a law prescribing the maximum
period for which any person may, in any class or classes for cases, be detained under any law
providing for preventive detention.

Section 14A of the National Security Act, 1980, prescribes a maximum period of twelve
months for which a person can be detained under the Act.

Section 14A was amended, in view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State of
Punjab and in the amended Section 14A, the words “twelve months” have been substituted by
the words “two years” for Punjab and Chandigarh.

Preventive Detention Without Reference to Advisory Board [Article 22(7)(a)]:

Article 22(7)(a) provides: “Parliament may by law prescribe the circumstances under which
and the class or classes of cases in which, a person may be detained for a period longer than
three months under any law providing for preventive detention without obtaining the opinion
of an Advisory Board in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (a) of clause (4)”.

Article 22(7)(a) empowers only the Parliament and not a State Legislature.37

36
Puran Lal Lakhan Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 163.
37
State of W.B. v. Ashok Dey, AIR 1972 SC 1660.
 15

The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 proposed to delete sub-clause (a)
of Clause (7) of Article 22. Since, the Amendment is not brought into force, as yet, Article
22(7)(a) remains as it was prior to the Forty-fourth Amendment, 1978.

RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION

(Articles 23-24)

Introduction:

Articles 23 and 24 guarantee "the fundamental right against exploitation". This right is
secured to every person, whether citizen, non-citizen or an alien. The protection contained
therein, is available not only against the State but also against private individuals.38

Article 23(1) provides "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."

It prohibits "traffic in human beings”, ”begar" and other similar forms of forced labour. It
further declares that any contravention of this prohibition shall be an offence punishable by
law. Article 23(1), thus, envisages legislation for the enforcement of the prohibition contained
therein.

Traffic in Human Beings:

The expression "traffic in human beings" has been held to be a very wide expression and
means any dealings in human beings like chattels. It means selling and buying, men or
women, like goods. It includes immoral traffic in women or girls or subjecting children to
immoral or such like practices,39 such as making them devadasi or Jogins.40 It also covers
"slavery” though it is not expressly mentioned therein.41 In Vishal Jeet v. Union of India,42
the Supreme Court issued directions to the State Governments, and Union Territories for
eradicating the evil of child prostitution and for evolving programmes for the care, protection,
treatment, development and rehabilitation of the young fallen victims.

38
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
39
Raj Bahadur v. Legal Remembrancer, AIR 1953 Cal 522.
40
Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1412.
41
Dubar Goala v. Union of India, AIR 1952, Cal 496.
42
AIR 1990 SC 1412.
 16

Begar:

The term "begar" is of Indian origin. It means involuntary work without payment. 43

"Begar" constitutes two elements -

(a) It is to compel a person to work against his will; and

(b) He is not paid any remuneration for that work.

Begar thus means "labour or service exacted by Government or a person in power without
giving remuneration for it."44

In Kahason Thangkhul v. Simirei Shailei,45 a custom, though immemorial, according to

which the Headman or Khullakpa of the village, for being the Headman and the first
settlement in the village, was entitled to one day’s free labour of one person from each
household every month, was struck down as amounting to begar, prohibited by Article 23(1).

In Chandra v. State of Rajasthan,46 the Sarpanch of the village ordered every household to
send one man, along with a spade and an iron pan, to render free service for the embankment
of the village tank. The Rajasthan High Court held the order of the Sarpanch clearly against
Article 23(1) which forbade begar.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, the barbers and dhobies (washermen) used to refuse rendering
their personal services to harijans. To abolish this practice of untouchability, the State
enacted the Uttar Pradesh Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947. Section 3 of the Act
provided : "No person shall refuse to render to any person merely on the ground that he
belongs to a Scheduled Caste, any service which such person already renders to other Hindus
on the terms on which such service is rendered in the ordinary course of business". A person
violating the provisions of this Act was liable to be punished with imprisonment and fine.
The Act was upheld in State v. Banwari,47 as, valid as not imposing forced labour.

43
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
44
Sharma Bain v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 All 57.
45
AIR 1961 Manipur 1.
46
AIR 1959 Raj 186. It was held not within the powers of the Panchayat.
47
AIR 1951 All 615.
 17

"Begar" is held to be a form of "forced labour”. To constitute "begar" the person who is
compelled to render services is not paid any remuneration.48 However, it has been held that
payment of less than minimum wages is included in the practice of Begar.49

Compulsory Service for Public Purposes [Article 23(2)]:

Clause (2) of Article 23, an exception to Clause (1), enables the State to impose compulsory
service for public purpose. However, while imposing such compulsory service, the State is
prohibited from making any discrimination on the ground only of religion, race, caste or class
or any of them.50

The expression "public purpose" includes any object or aim in which the general interest of
the community as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and essentially
concerned.51 It would include the social or economic objectives enshrined in Part IV of the
Constitution relating to Directive Principles of State Policy.52

In State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat,53 a three-Judge Bench of the

Supreme Court has ruled that a directive from the Court, under the authority of law, to subject
a convicted person to compulsory manual labour would be legally protected under the
exemption provided in Clause (2) of Article 23 because it served a public purpose.

Employment of Children [Article 24]:

Article 24 provides: "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."

This provision read with the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Articles 39(e)
and 39(f), provides for the protection of the health and strength of children below the age of
fourteen years.

The Supreme Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India,54 held that
building construction work was such hazardous employment where children below 14 years

48
S. Vasudevan v. S.D. Mittal, AIR 1962 Bom 53.
49
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473.
50
Clause (2) of Article 23.
51
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 252.
52
Ibid.
53
AIR 1998 SC 3164.
54
AIR 1982 SC 1473.
 18

should not be employed, and the prohibition contained in Article 24 could be plainly and
indubitably enforced against everyone, whether State or private individual.

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India,55 the Supreme Court reiterated with approval
the directions given in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu,56 “in regard to the
constitutional perspective of the abolition of the child labour and the employment of child
below the age of 14 years in the notorious Sivakasi Match Industries. Taking note of the
cause for failure to implement the constitutional mandate, the Court declared the directions as
feasible inevitable and reiterated the need for their speedy implementation.

The instant case related to the employment of children in Carpet Industry in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Referring to M.C. Mehta’s case,57 “ the Apex Court gave direction to the
Government of India to convene within two months from the receipt of order, a meeting of
the concerned Ministers of the respective State Governments and their Principal Secretaries,
holding concerned Departments, to evolve the principles of/and policies for progressive
elimination of employment of the children below the age of 14 years in all employments as
mentioned in Mehta’s case, and to provide :

(1) Compulsory education of all children employed in the factories, mine or any other
industry, organised or unorganised labour with such timings as is convenient to import
compulsory education, facilities for secondary, vocational profession and higher education;

(2) Apart from education, periodical health check-up;

(3) Nutrient food, etc.;

(4) Entrust the responsibilities for implementation of the principles.

The above directions were said to be as feasible, inevitable and needed speedy
implementation in B.M.M. case,58 a case relating to employment of children in carpet
industry.

The Court further directed that periodical reports of the progress made in that behalf would
be submitted to the Registry of the Supreme Court.

55
AIR 1997 SC 2218.
56
AIR 1997 SC 699.
57
M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N., AIR 1997 SC 699.
58
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2218.
 19

In pursuance of the obligation, contained in Article 24, Parliament enacted the Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which specifically prohibits the employment of
children in certain industries. In addition to this legislation, many other laws, enacted before
and after the commencement of the Constitution, prohibit child labour, e.g., the Employment
of Children Act, 1938; the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act, 1933; the Indian Factories Act,
1948; the Mines Act, 1952; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958; the Motor Transport Workers
Act, 1951; the Plantation Labour Act, 1951; the Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of
Employment) Act, 1966; the Apprentices Act, 1961.
 20

Books referred

1. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad,

10th edition, 2018).

2. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern book Company, Lucknow, 13th

Edition,2017).

3. Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 55th
edition, 2018).

Websites referred

1. www.publishyourarticles.com

2. www.legalserviceindia.com