The Bandhua Mukti Morcha ,is a non-governmental organization established in 1981 to fight against
bonded labor in India. In 1983, the BMM filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of
India against the Union of India and the State Governments, challenging the legality of bonded labor and
seeking its abolition. The case, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, was heard by a three-judge
bench comprising Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice Ranganath Misra, and Justice D.A. Desai.
Facts
The Petitioner, the Bandhua Mukti Morcha, investigated some of the stone
quarries in the Faridabad district, which is close to Delhi,and discovered that
many of the workers from the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,Uttar
Pradesh, and Rajasthan were dealing with reprehensible conditions. On
February 25, 1982,the organization—sent a letter to the Honourable Justice P.
N. Bhagwati.
In the letter, 11 Rajasthani employees, 30 Madhya Pradesh employees, and
14 Uttar Pradesh employees were identified along with statements
describing their vulnerabilities. The letter focused on fatal injuries,
respiratory illnesses brought on by accidents, and stone dust,
among other issues, . Moreover, it also discussed the other issues that
make life for workers miserable, including contaminated drinking water, poor
sanitation, low pay, and sexual exploitation of women. The BMM alleged that
bonded labor was widespread in various industries, including mines, brick
kilns, and agriculture. The workers were trapped in a cycle of debt
bondage, where they had to work for their employers to repay their
debts. The workers were often subjected to physical and mental abuse, and
their wages were meager, barely enough to meet their basic needs.
The petitioner argued that bonded labor was unconstitutional and violated
several fundamental rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution,
including the right to life, liberty, and equality.
The petitioner’s prayer herein for sought the issuance of a writ petition for
the purpose to implement labour welfare laws such as the Mines Act, 1952,
Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, Bonded Labour
System (Abolition) Act, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and others in a way that
was appropriate.
The letter was treated as a Writ Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, and a notice was issued by a court appointing two solicitors, Ashok
Srivastava and Ashok Panda, as commissioners to visit the stone quarries
mentioned in the said letter and to work with the staff. On March 2 nd,1982,
the commissioners’ report was delivered.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
[Link] the letter referred to as a “Writ Petition” maintainable?
2. Whether or not the worker’s fundamental rights were genuinely infringed.
3. Whether or not Article 32 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the
authority to form any commissions or investigative bodies.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition was held maintainable as the Court observed that there was
a violation of fundamental rights.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Supreme Court
delivered a landmark judgement in favour of the petitioners. The Court
recognized the existence of bonded labour as a serious and pervasive
problem in India and held that it was a violation of fundamental rights.
The Court further observed that Article 32(2) of the Constitution of India
empowers the Court to make any directions, writs or orders for the
prevention of the fundamental rights of every individual. The Hon’ble Court
found the article presented before it is sufficiently wide enough to appoint
the fact-finding commission as well as to appoint lawyers for the poor and
oppressed who are not in the financial situation to stand for their rights and
fight for them.
The Court Issued a series of directives to the Union and State governments,
including:
• Immediate identification and release of all bonded laborer’s.
• Effective implementation of the Bonded Labour Act and other relevant
laws.
• Rehabilitation of freed bonded laborer’s through comprehensive
programmes
• Establishment of vigilance committees to monitor the situation.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that bonded labor was
unconstitutional and violated several fundamental rights guaranteed under
the Indian Constitution, including the right to life, liberty, and equality. The
court observed that bonded labor was akin to slavery, which was abolished
by the Indian Constitution. The court held that bonded labor was a violation
of the dignity of the individual and a gross exploitation of the poor and the
downtrodden.
The court cited the case of Frances Mullins. W.C. Khambra held that Article
21 included the right to life and human dignity without exploitation.
The court further held that the State was liable to take necessary steps to
eradicate bonded labor. The court directed the Union of India and the State
Governments to identify bonded laborers, release them from bondage, and
rehabilitate them. The court also directed the Union of India and the State
Governments to take necessary steps to prevent the practice of bonded
labor in the future.
Analysis
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in this case had far-reaching
implications and led to the abolition of bonded labor in India. The court
declared the “Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976” as constitutional
and ordered the release and rehabilitation of bonded laborers. The court held
that bonded labor was violative of human dignity and the fundamental right
to life and liberty under the Indian Constitution. The court also issued a
number of directions to the Union and State Governments to ensure the
effective implementation of the Act and to prevent the re-emergence of
bonded labor in India.
The Court clearly states the balance of power that a legislature is
empowered with. When a legislature has the power to create laws, then it
also becomes its duty to check whether such laws are properly implemented
or not. The Legislature did not closely monitor or inspect the implementation
of the Mines Act and Inter-State Migrants Act which resulted in severe
exploitation of workers and deprivation of their human rights.
So according to me there should be a system in order to ascertain whether or
not the laws made by the legislature are in reality being implemented or not.
Furthermore, the case is significant in the context of public interest litigation
(PIL) in India.
