NAME: VIR PARESH PATEL

CLASS: FOURTH YEAR BLS

DIV: A ROLL NO: 46
SUBJECT: PRACTICAL TRAINING
ASS. PROF: DR. PARMILA DHIMAN
TOPIC: ROLE OF PIL IN PROTECTION OF
LABOUR’S RIGHT AGAINST EXPLOITATION
 INTRODUCTION:
India is a country with a democratic constitution that speaks for civil liberties for all its citizens.
Freedom from exploitation is a basic right for all citizens of a democratic country since if a citizen is not
free from exploitation, then a country cannot be justified as a democratic one. Yet , many people are
forced to do work against their will at cheap rates and millions of women and children become victims
of human trafficking. In 2016, there were 18.3 million people in modern slavery in India according to
the Global Slavery Index. The 2018 Global slavery survey report stated that there has been a further
addition of forced sexual exploitation and child labour in the country. Exploitation such as forced labor,
trafficking, and beggar is alleged to be a curse on humanity as it violates the basic human rights given
to every individual to protect them from forceful mistreatment, inequality, and unfairness. The Right
against exploitation enshrined in Article 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution guarantees human dignity
and protect people from any such exploitation. Ubi Jus, Ibi Idem Remedium is a Latin term which
means that where there is a right, there is always a remedy. The remedy for enforcement of Rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India is embedded in Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution. It
confers power upon the Supreme Court and the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of Prohibition,
Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari and Quo Warranto. One of the methods adopted for
enforcement of such rights is through Public Interest Litigation.
 PIL
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Indian law, means litigation for the protection of public interest. Any matter where the interest of public
at large is affected can be redressed by filing a Public Interest Litigation in a court of law.

Through Public Interest Litigation, any public-spirited person acting bona fide can come forward to further a cause for a particular class of
the society namely the weak, the deprived and the illiterate. Such actions must be public interest and must not be for any personal gains,
private profits or political motivation. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is
being filed for a public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body.

The phrase ‘Public interest Litigation’ relates to the very term ‘Public Interest’. Generally the litigation by someone for the interest of the
public is the Public Interest Litigation. It does not mean that mere a stranger can move to court for a Public Interest litigation and that’s
why it is a carving need to define ‘Public Interest’.

In fact, a PIL is generally instituted for the enforcement of the Constitutional and Legal Rights of the poor and Excluded groups as well as
ensuring accountability of concerned government and public authorities towards issues of public importance. Persistent efforts by the
NGOs and social action groups through PIL has, in many occasions, prompted the High Court Division to issue directives and orders that in
turn addressed the socio-economic concerns of the poor and the marginalized groups.

The judiciary has played an exemplary role in the expansion of Public Interest Litigation by relaxing the rule of locus standi.

Thus, according to the principle of locus standi, any aggrieved person can approach the courts for a remedy. Locus Standi is relaxed and
made flexible in a PIL to expand the scope of litigation by considering the rights and issues of the marginalized and underprivileged.
Who Can File a PIL and Against Whom?
Any citizen can file a public case by filing a petition

Under Art 32 of the Indian Constitution, in the Supreme Court.

Under Art 226 of the Indian Constitution, in the High Court.

Under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the Court of Magistrate.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
Till 1960s and seventies, the concept of litigation in India was still in its rudimentary form and was seen as a private pursuit for the vindication of
private vested interests. Litigation in those days consisted mainly of some action initiated and continued by certain individuals, usually, addressing
their own grievances/problems. Thus, the initiation and continuance of litigation was the prerogative of the injured person or the aggrieved party.
Even this was greatly limited by the resources available with those individuals. There were very little organized efforts or attempts to take up wider
issues that affected classes of consumers or the general public at large. However, these entire scenario changed during Eighties with the Supreme
Court of India led the concept of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The Supreme Court of India gave all individuals in the country and the newly
formed consumer groups or social action groups, an easier access to the law and introduced in their work a broad public interest perspective.

The term PIL originated in the United States in the mid-1980s. Since the nineteenth century, various movements in that country had contributed to
public interest law, which was part of the legal aid movement. The first legal aid office was established in New York in 1876. In the 1960s the PIL
movement began to receive financial support from the office of Economic Opportunity, This encouraged lawyers and public spirited persons to
take up cases of the under-privileged and fight against dangers to environment and public health and exploitation of consumers and the weaker
sections.

In Indian law, public interest litigation means litigation for the protection of the public interest. It is litigation introduced in a court of law, not by
the aggrieved party but by the court itself or by any other private party. It is not necessary, for the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, that the
person who is the victim of the violation of his or her right should personally approach the court. Public interest litigation is the power given to the
public by courts through judicial activism. However, the person filing the petition must prove to the satisfaction of the court that the petition is
being filed for a public interest and not just as a frivolous litigation by a busy body. Such cases may occur when the victim does not have the
necessary resources to commence litigation or his freedom to move court has been suppressed or encroached upon. The court can itself take
cognizance of the matter and proceed suo motu or cases can commence on the petition of any public spirited individual.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
In order to prevent exploitation of bonded labour the Constitution contains several provisions. Thus clause (1) of article 23
prohibits traffic in human beings and other similar forms of forced labour. Further article 21 guarantees that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Quite apart from the aforesaid prohibitions the state has been directed to strive to secure, inter alia (a) just and humane
conditions of work (b) educational and economic interests of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other weaker sections.
These are directives to the legislative, judicial and executive organs of the state, which are committed to make, interpret and
enforce law.
Article 23 – Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour:
Article 23(1): Traffic in human beings and the beggar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any
contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law.
Article 23(2): Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, 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.
Laws passed by the Parliament in pursuance of Article 23:
◦ Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956
◦ Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
Continued…
Article 24 – Prohibition of employment of children in factories:
Article 24 says that “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 Article forbids the employment of children below the age of 14 in any hazardous industry or
factories or mines, without exception.
However, the employment of children in non-hazardous work is allowed.
Laws that were passed in pursuance of Article 24 in India.
•The Factories Act, 1948
•The Mines Act of 1952
•The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
•Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016
•Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2017
 Some Landmark Judgements
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC1943.
In the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India , the petitioner was an organisation formed for the protection of democratic rights. It
undertook efforts to investigate the conditions under which the workmen employed in various Asiad projects were working. This investigation found out that
various labour laws were being violated and consequently public interest litigation was initiated. In the case issues like labourers not given the minimum
remuneration as mentioned in the minimum wages act, 1948 and unequal income distribution among men and women were highlighted.
The Supreme Court interpreted the scope of article 23 in the case. The Court held that the word force within this article has a very wide meaning. It includes
physical force, legal force and other economic factors which force a person to provide labour at a wage less than the minimum wage. Hence, if a person is
forced to provide labour for less than the minimum wage, just because of poverty, want, destitution or hunger, it would be accounted for as forced labour.
The Court also clarified the meaning of “all similar forms of forced labour” as mentioned in article 23 of the Constitution of India. It said that not only begar,
but all forms of forced labour are prohibited. This means that it would not matter if a person is given remuneration or not as long as he is forced to supply
labour against his will.
Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 328.
In the case of  Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, the state employed a large number of workers for the construction of a road to provide them relief from
drought and scarcity conditions prevailing in their area. Their employment fell under the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour
Laws) Act, 1964. The people employed for the work were paid less than the minimum wage, which was allowed in the Exemption Act.  
The Court held that the Rajasthan Famine Relief Works Employees (Exemption from Labour Laws) Act, 1964 is Constitutionally invalid as to the exclusion of the
minimum wages act. This means that minimum wage must be paid to all the people employed by the state for any famine relief work, regardless of whether
the person is affected by drought or scarcity or not. This is essential so that the state does not take advantage of the helpless condition of the people affected
by famine, drought etc and upholds that they must be paid fairly for the work into which they put in effort and sweat, and which provides benefits to the state.
Continued…
Deena v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1155.
In the case of  Deena v. Union of India, it was held that if a prisoner is forced to do labour without giving him any remuneration, it
is deemed to be forced labour and is violative of Article 23 of the Indian Constitution. This is because the prisoners are entitled to
receive reasonable wages for the labour they did.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
The petitioner, Bandhua Mukti Morcha is an organisation waging a battle against the horrendous system of bonded labour. In the
case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the organisation sent a letter to Justice Bhagwati and the Court treated it as a
Public Interest Litigation. The letter contained its observations based on a survey it conducted of some stone quarries in the
Faridabad district where it was found that these contained a large number of workers working in “inhuman and intolerable
conditions”, and many of them were forced labourers. 
The Court laid down guidelines for determination of bonded labourers and also provided that it is the duty of the state government
to identify, release and rehabilitate the bonded labourers. It was held that any person who is employed as a bonded labour is
deprived of his liberty. Such a person becomes a slave and his freedom in the matter of employment is completely taken away and
forced labour is thrust upon him. It was also held that whenever it is shown that a worker is engaged in forced labour, the Court
would presume he is doing so in consideration of some economic consideration and is, therefore, a bonded labour. This
presumption can only be rebutted against by the employer and the state government if satisfactory evidence is provided for the
same.
Continued…
Kahason Tangkhul v. Simtri Shaili, AIR 1961 Manipur
Before independence, there was a tradition in Manipur wherein each of the house-holders had to offer one day’s free labour to
the headman or khullakpa of the village. In the case Miksha v. State of Manipur this practice was upheld as a custom which
cannot be deemed to amount to forced labour. However, the appellant disagreed to give one day’s free labour. Consequently,
respondent came forward and filed a suit against the appellant stating that the appellant continued to ignore the custom even
after the court had given directions for it to be followed.
In the case of Roweina Kahaosan Tangkhul v. Ruiweinao Simirei Shailei Khullapka, the Court, however, allowed the appeal and
held this customary practice to be violative of Article 23 of the Constitution. It said that when a Khullakpa insists on carrying on the
custom, it led to forced labour as the villagers had to do it without receiving wages for it. 
State v. Banwari, AIR 1951 All. 615
In the case of State through Gokul Chand v. Banwari  ., the appellants including 5 barbers and 2 dhobis contested against Section
3 and Section 6 of U. P. Removal of Social Disabilities Act, 1947, under which they were convicted. 
Section 3 of the act laid down that no person can refuse to render any service to another person on the ground that he belongs to
a scheduled caste. Provided that such service lies in the ordinary course of business. The appellants contested that this Section
was violative article 23 of the Constitution. But the Court disagreed and held that making it illegal for a person to refuse service to
some person just because that person belongs to scheduled cases does not equate to begar.
Continued…
Dulal Samanta v. D.M., Howrah, AIR 1958 Cal. 365
In the case of , the petitioner was served with a notice appointing him as a special police officer for a period of three
months. He complained that this violated his fundamental right as it results in “forced labour”
The Court disregarded his appeal and held that conscription for services of police cannot be considered as either:
(i) beggar; or
(ii) traffic in human beings; or
(iii) any similar form of forced labour.
Hence, the notice given for the appointment of a person as a special police officer is not in prohibition to Article 23.
Continued…
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 1473
In the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, the petitioner observed the conditions in which the workers employed in
various Asiad projects were working. It was observed that children under the age of fourteen had been employed. It was however contended that
such employment was not against the Employment of Children Act, 1938 since the act did not list the construction industry as a hazardous
industry.
The Court held that the construction work falls in the field of hazardous employment. Thus, children under the age of fourteen must not be
employed in the construction work even though it has not been mentioned explicitly under the Employment of Children Act 1938. The Court also
advised the state government to amend the schedule and change the omission to include the construction industry into the list of hazardous
industries.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699
In the case of  M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, Shri MC Mehta undertook to invoke Article 32, enabling the Court to look into the violation of
fundamental rights of children guaranteed to them under Article 24. Sivakasi was considered as a big offender who was employing many child
labourers. It was engaged in the manufacturing process of matches and fireworks. This, the Court observed, qualified as a hazardous industry. Thus
employing children under the age of 14 years in this industry is prohibited.
The Court reaffirmed that children below the age of fourteen must not be employed in any hazardous industry and it must be seen that all children
are given education till the age of 14 years. The Court also considered Article 39(e) which says that the tender age of children must not be abused
and they must be given opportunities to develop in a healthy manner. In light of this, the Court held that the employer Sivakasi must pay a
compensation of Rs. 20000 for employing children in contravention to Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
CONCLUSION
Public Interest Litigation has produced astonishing results which were unthinkable three decades
ago. Degraded bonded labourers, tortured under trials and women prisoners, humiliated inmates
of protective women’s home, blinded prisoners, exploited children, beggars, and many others have
been given relief through judicial intervention.
The greatest contribution of PIL has been to enhance the accountability of the governments
towards the human rights of the poor.
The PIL develops a new jurisprudence of the accountability of the state for constitutional and
legal violations adversely affecting the interests of the weaker elements in the community.
However, the Judiciary should be cautious enough in the application of PILs to avoid Judicial
Overreach that are violative of the principle of Separation of Power.
Besides, the frivolous PILs with vested interests must be discouraged to keep its workload
manageable.