Article 23 :-  Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour :-

(1) 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

(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purpose, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them

Article 24 :-  Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc :-

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.

Question : How does the Indian Constitution guarantee the right against exploitation ?

Answer : Article-23 of the Constitution of India, prohibits traffic in human being and `begar’ and other similar forms of forced labour.

The second part of this Article declares that any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

Clause (2) however permits the State to impose compulsory services for public purposes provided that in making so it shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or class or any of them.

According to Article 24, 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.

`Traffic in human beings’ means selling and buying men and women like goods and includes immoral traffic in women and children for immoral or other purposes.

Though slavery is not expressly mentioned in Article 23, it is included in the expression `traffic in human being’. Under Article 35 of the Constitution Parliament is authorised to make laws for punishing acts prohibited by this Article. In pursuance of this Article Parliament has passed the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, for punishing acts which result in traffic in human beings.

Article 23 protects the individual not only against the State but also private citizens. It imposes a positive obligation on the State to take steps to abolish evils of “traffic in human beings” and begar and other similar forms of forced labour wherever they are found.

Article 23 prohibits the system of ‘bonded labour’ because it is a form of force labour within the meaning of this Article. It is to be noted that, the protection of this Article is available to both citizens as well as non-citizens.

Begar and ‘other forms of forced labour’ are prohibited by this Article.

‘Beggar’ means involuntary work without payment. What is prohibited by this clause is the making of a person to render service where he was lawfully entitled not to work or to receive remuneration of the services rendered by him.

This clause, therefore, does not prohibit forced labour as a punishment for criminal offence. The protection is not confined to beggar only but also to ‘other forms of forced labour’..It means to compel a person to work against his will.

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) the Supreme Court held that scope of Article 23 is wide and unlimited and strikes at “traffic in human being” and “begar and other forms of forced labour” wherever they are found. It is not merely “begar” which is prohibited by Article 23 but also all other forms of forced labour.

“Beggar” is a form of forced labour under which a person is compelled to work without receiving any remuneration. This Article strikes at forced labour in whatever form it may manifest(clear/apparent स्पष्ट) itself, because it is violative of human dignity and contrary to basic human values. The practice of forced labour is condemned in almost every international instrument dealing with human rights. Every form of forced labour, “begar”, or other forms, is prohibited by Article 23 and it makes no difference whether the person who is forced to give his labour or service to another is paid remuneration or not. Even if remuneration is paid, labour or services supplied by a person would be hit by this Article, if it is forced labour, e.g. labour supplied not willingly but as a result of force or compulsion.

In Deena v. Union of India (1983), it was held that, labour taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration was ‘forced labour’ and violative of Art. 23. The prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable wages for the work taken from them and the Court is under duty to enforce their claim.

In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan,  (1983), it has been held that the payment of wages lower than the minimum wages to the person employed on Famine (दुष्काळ) Relief Work is violative of Article 23. Whenever any labour or service is taken by the State from any person who is affected by drought and scarcity condition the State cannot pay him less wage than the minimum wage on the ground that it is given them to help to meet famine situation. The State cannot take advantage of their helplessness.

In Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984), the Supreme Court held that when an action is initiated in the court through public interest litigation alleging the existence of bonded labour the Government should welcome it as it may give the Government an opportunity to examine whether bonded labour system exists and as well as to take appropriate steps to eradicate that system. This is the constitutional obligation of the Government under Article 23 which prohibits `forced labour’ in any form

Compulsory service for public purposes :- Clause (2) of Article 23 contains an exception to the above general rule. Under this clause the State is empowered to impose compulsory service for public purpose. But in imposing such compulsory service the State cannot make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.

Prohibition of employment of children in factories, etc :- Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits employment of children below 14 years of age in factories and hazardous employment.  This provision is certainly in the interest of public health and safety of life of children.

Children are assets of the nation. That is why Article 39 imposes upon the State an obligation to ensure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of the children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessary to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength.

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982), it was contended that ‘The Employment of Children Act, 1938’ was not applicable in case of employment of children in the construction work of Asiad Projects in Delhi since construction industry was not a process specified in the Schedule to the Children Act….The Court rejected this contention and held that the construction work is hazardous employment.

This Article however, does not prohibit their employment in any innocent or harmless job or work.

In a landmark judgement in M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997), the SC has held that children below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, mines or other works and has laid down exhaustive guidelines how the State authorities should protect economic, social, and humanitarian rights of millions of children, working illegally in public and private sections.

(This case is a public interest litigation under Art 32, also famous as, ‘Shivakashi Cracker Factories case.)