RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION | Article 23 & 24

In this article we are discussing about one of the Fundamental Rights that is Right Against Exploitation under Article 23&24 of the Constitution of India

 

MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE

 

Article 23 and 24 guarantee “the fundamental right against exploitation”. The right contained in Article 23 and 24 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.

 

Article 23(1) provides

 

“Traffic in human beings and beggar 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 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" means any dealing 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 like practices. It also covers slavery" though it is not expressly mentioned therein. The expression traffic in human beings have been held to be a very wide expression including the traffic in woman for immoral or other purposes such as making them devadasi or jogins.

 

To enforce the constitutional prohibition against traffic in human beings", Parliament, in the exercise of power under Article 35, enacted the Suppression of immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956.

 

In Vishal Jeet Vs. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1412, the Supreme Court issued directions to the Slate 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.

 

BEGAR

 

The term "begar" is of Indian ongin. It means involuntary work without payment. "Begar" constitutes of 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 on power without giving remuneration for it.

 

In Suraj Narayan Vs, State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1960 M.P. 303, it was held that non-payment of salary to a teacher for unsatisfactory work offended the spirit of Article 23 and amounted to begar. However, a delinquent government servant, on being re-instated in service, would not be entitle to the payment of back wages, in the light of the confidential reports indicating doubtful integrity, though he is acquitted by the criminal court, of the charge of corruption

 

Again, it cannot be said that a prisoner sentenced to undergo imprisonment with hard labour would be doing begar if prison authorities put him to hard labour. It cannot also be "other similar form of forced labour offending Article 23(1). However, hon-payment of proper remuneration to such prisoner for the labour rendered by them has been held to be forced labour within the meaning of Article 23(1) "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. However, it has been held that payment of less than minimum wages is included in the practice of Begår.

 

SIMILAR FORMS OF FORCED LABOUR

 

In People's Union for Democratic Right Vs. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473, the Supreme Court held that Article 23(1) would strike at forced labour in whatever form it might manifest itself. It thus prohibited not only "begar" or other unpaid labour but also prohibited compelling all unwilling labour, whether paid or not. Any amount of remuneration paid to a person will be immaterial labour is forced upon him.

 

The Court explained that force or compulsion under Article 23(1) might either be the result of physical force of legal provisions or of want or hunger and poverty.

 

COMPULSORY SERVICE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE [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 or religion, race, caste or class or any of them.

 

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. It would include the social or economic objective enshrined in Part IX of the Constitution relating to Directive Principles of State Policy.

 

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 Article 39(e) and 39(1), provides for the protection of the health and strength of children below the age of fourteen years.

 

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 2218, the Supreme Court reiterated with approval the directions given in M.C. Mehta Ve. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1997 SC 699, 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 direction as feasible inevitable and reiterated the need for their speedy implementation.

 

Referring to M.C. Mehta's case, 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, organized or unorganized 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 Court further directed that periodical reports of the progress made on that behalf would be submitted to the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Right Against Exploitation is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, reflecting the nation's commitment to preserving human dignity and freedom. By upholding this fundamental right, India strives to create a society where every individual can thrive without fear of exploitation. As citizens, it is our collective responsibility to support initiatives that combat exploitation and protect the rights of the vulnerable. Let us remember that a nation's greatness is measured not only by its economic progress but also by how it safeguards the rights and liberties of its people. The Right Against Exploitation serves as a guiding light in this pursuit of justice and equality for all.