Holding

The Court held that the State must implement comprehensive measures—including employer compensation, a rehabilitation fund, alternative adult employment, compulsory education, and monitoring—to eliminate child labour in violation of Article 24 and related constitutional provisions.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by M.C. Mehta challenging the employment of children below fourteen in hazardous factories and mines in Sivakasi and elsewhere, alleging violation of the fundamental right under Article 24 of the Constitution. The Court examined the constitutional mandate under Articles 39, 41, 45 and 47, as well as India’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and held that the State must take affirmative steps to eradicate child labour. It directed that employers who employ children in contravention of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, pay a compensation of Rs.20,000 per child to be deposited in a Child Labour Rehabilitation‑cum‑Welfare Fund, and that the appropriate Government provide alternative adult employment or a monthly stipend of Rs.25,000 per child where such employment is not feasible. The Court also ordered a six‑month survey of child labour, creation of a monitoring cell in the Ministry of Labour, and that the Secretary to the Ministry report back within a year. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the employment of children below fourteen in hazardous occupations violates the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution.
Whether the State, under Articles 39(e), 39(1), 41, 45 and 47, is constitutionally obligated to provide alternative adult employment, compensation, and education for child labourers.
What remedial directions the Court may issue under Article 32 in a public‑interest litigation concerning child labour.
Whether the penalties and enforcement mechanisms under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and related statutes are sufficient to deter child labour.

Legislation cited

Apprentices Act, 1961s. 3
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986s. 14, s. 17, s. 3
Factories Act, 1948s. 67
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958s. 109
Mines Act, 1952s. 45

Subjects

Child LabourFundamental RightsArticle 24Article 45Public Interest LitigationCompensationRehabilitation FundEducationEmployment Law

Judgment

A M.C. MEHTA
v.
STATE OF.TAMIL NADU

DECEMBER 10, 1996
B
[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 24, 39(e), (f), 41, 45, 47 and 32.

Public Interest Litigation-Child Labour-Abolition of-Children aged
C . below 14 years must not be employed in any factory or mine or other
hazardous work-They must be given education as desired by Article 45 and
declared in Unni Kris/man's case-Employers must comply with provisions
of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act-Offending employer
would be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for every child employed
D in contravention of those provisions--Govemment must either provide job to
an adult member of the family in lieu of the child of that family who was
employed in any factory or a mine or in other hazardous work or it must
deposit Rs. 5, 000 for each child-If no such altemative employment provided,
the parent/guardian of the child would be entitled to a monthly income from
the corpus of Rs. 25,000 per child-Amount to be deposited in Child Labour
E Rehabilitation-cum-We/fare Fund-However, employment given or payment
made would cease to be operative if child was not sent by parent/guardian
for education-Inspectors appointed under S. 17 of the Child Labour
(Prohibition Regulation) Act must ensure compliance of provisions of the
Act-Further directions also given-Ghild Labour (Prohibition and Regula-
F tion) Act, 1986, Ss. 3 & 14-Factories Act, 1948, S. 67-f'lantation Labour
Act, 1951, S. 24-Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, S. 109-Mines Act, 1952, S.
45-Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, S. 21-Apprentices A.ct, 1961, S.
3-Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, S.
24-Shops and Commercial Establishments ActS-Convention 011 the Rights
G of the Child (concluded by U.N. General Assembly on 20.11.1989), Art. 32.

There were many factories in Sivakasi which employed child labonr
in the mannfacturing process of matches and fireworks which was hazard-
ons giving rise to accidents including fatal case. The petitioner filed the
present Public Interest Litigation as the fundamental right of the children
H guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution was being grossly violated.
726
M.C.MEIITA v. STATE 727

Disposing of the petition, this Court A
HELD : 1.1. In our Country Sivakasi was once taken as the worst
offender in the matter of violating prohibition of employing child labour.
But child labour by now is an all-India evil, though its acuteness differs
from area to area. So without a concerted effort, both of the Central
Government and various State Governments, this ignominy would not get B
wiped ·out. Therefore, it is considered fit to travel beyond the confines of
Sivakasi to which place this petition initially related. It would be more
appropriate to deal with the issue in wider spectrum and broader perspec-
tive taking it as a national problem and not pertaining to any one region
of the country. So the question ls as to how this Court can, and is required C
to, tackle the problem of child labour. [732-A; 738-A-C]

1.2. While Article 24 of the Constitution has been a fundamental
right ever since its inception, Article 45 too has been raised to high
pedestal by Unni Krishanan. Though other articles are part of directive
principles, they are fundamental in the governance of our country and it D
is the duty of all the organs of the State (a la Article 37) to apply these
principles. Judiciary, being also one of the three principal organs of the
State, has to keep the same in mind when called upon to decide matters
of great public importance. Abolition of child labour is definitely a matter
of great pnblic concern and significance. [739-D-E] E
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., [1993] 1 sec G4S, followed.

2.1. Besides the Constitutional provisions this country has accepted
the Convention on the Rights of the Child which was concluded by the UN
General Assembly on 20.11.1989 and the statntory provisions. But child F
labour has continued despite the aforesaid statutory enactments. Poverty
is basic reason which compels parents of a child, despite their unwilling-
ness, to get it employed. It may be that the problem would be taken care
of to some extent by insisting on compulsory education. Even if it were to
be so, child of a poor parent would not receive education, if per force it G
has to earn to make the family meet both the ends. Therefore, till an
alternative income is assured to the family, the question of abolition of
child labour wonld really remain a will-o' -the wisJl, Since employment of
child below the age of 14 is a constitutional indication insofar as work in
any factory or mine or engagement in other hazardous work, and if it has
to be seen that all children are given education till the age of 14 years in H
72B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A view of this being a fundamental right now, and if the wish embodied in
Article 39(e) that the tender age of children is not abused and citizens are

-
not forced by economic necessity to enter avocation unsuited to their age,
and if children are to be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a
healthy manner and childhood is to be protected against exploitation as
B visualised by Article 39(1), it is necessary to see to the fulfilment of
legislative intendment behind enactment of the Child Labour (Prohibition
and Regulation) Act, 1986. Accordingly, the offending employer most be
asked to pay compensation for every child employed in contravention of
the provisions of the Act a sum of Rs. 20,000 and the Inspectors, whose
appointment is visualised by section 17 to secure compliance with the
C provisions of the Act should do this job. The Inspectors appointed under
Section 17 should see that for each child employed in violation of the
provisions of the Act, the concerned employer pays Rs. 30,000 which sum
could be deposited in a fund to be known as Child Labour Rebabilitation-
cum-welfare Fund. The liability of the employer wonld not cease even if he
D wonld perhaps desire to disengage the child presently employed. It "'ould
perhaps be appropriate to have such a fund district wise or area wise. The
fund so generated shall form corpus whose income shall be used only for
the concerned child. The quantum could be the income earned on the
corpus deposited qua the child. To generate greater income, fund can be
deposited in high yielding scheme of any nationalised bank or other public
E body. [739-G; 746-H; 747-C-H; 748-A]

2.2. As the aforesaid income contd not be enongh to dissuade the
parent/guardian to seek employment of the child, the State owes a duty to
come forward to discharge its obligation in this regard, since the
F aforementioned constitutional provisions have to be implemented by the
appropriate Government as defined in section 2(i) of the Act. Strictly
speaking a strong case exists to invoke the aid of Article 41 of the
Constitution regarding the right to work and to give meaning to what bas
been provided in Article 47 relating to raising of standard of living of the
population, and Articles 39(e) and (I) as to non-abuse of tender age of
G children and giving opportunities and facilities to them to develop in
healthy manner, for asking the State to see that an adult member of the
family, whose child is in employment in a factory or a mine or in other
hazardous work, gets a job anywhere, in lieu of the child. This would also
see the fulliJment of the wish contained in Article 41 after about half a
H century of its being in the paramount parchment, like primary education
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE 729

desired by Article 45, having being given the stains of fundamental right A
by the decision in Unni Krishnan. However it is not necessary to direct the
State at this stage to ensure alternative employment in every case covered
by Article 24, as Article 41 speaks about right to work "within the limits of
the economic capacity and development of the State". Instead, the matter
is left to be sorted out by the appropriate Government. In those cases
B
where it would not be possible to provide job as above-mentioned, the
appropriate Government would, as its contribution/grant, deposit in the
aforesaid Fund a sum of Rs. 5,000 for each child employed in a factory or
mine or in any other hazardous employment. In those cases where alter·
native employment would not be made available as aforesaid, the
parent/guardian of the concerned child would he paid the income which c
would be earned on the corpus, which would be a sum of Rs. 25,000 for
each child, every month. The employment given or payment made would
ceased to be operative if the child would not be sent by the parent/guardian
for education. [748-B-H; 749-A·B]
D
2.3. A survey would be made of the aforesaid type of child labour
which would be completed within six months from the date of this judg·
ment. To start with, work could be taken up regarding those employments
which have been mentioned in Article 24, which may be regarded as core
sector, to determine which the hazardous aspect of the employment would
be taken as criterion. The employment to be given as per this direction E
could be dovetailed to other assured employment. The employment so
given cold as well be the industry where the child is employed, a public
undertaking and would be manual in nature inasmuch as the child in
question must be engaged in doing manual work. The undertaking chosen
for employment shall be one which is nearest to the place of residence of F
the family. [749-C-D; 750-B-C]

2.4. On discontinuation of the employment of the child, his education
would be assured in suitable institution with a view to make it a better
citizen. It may be pointed out that Article 45 mandates compulsory educa·
tion for all children until they complete the age of 14 years; it is also G
required to be free. It would be the duty of the Inspectors to see that this
call of the Constitution is carried out. [750-E]

2.5. A district could be the unit of collection so that the executive
head of the district keeps a watchful eye on the work of the Inspectors. H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Further, in view of the magnitude of the task, a separate cell in the Labour
Department of the appropriate Government would be created. Monitoring
of the scheme would also be necessary and the Secretary of the department
could perhaps do this work. Overall monitoring by the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India, would be beneficial and worthwhile. [750-F]

B 3.1. On the directions given being carried out, penal provision con-
tained in the Act would be used where employment of a child labour,
prohibited by the Act, would be found. [750-G; 751-A]

3.2. In so far as the non-hazardous jobs are concerned, the Inspector
C shall have to see that the working hours of the child are not more than
four to six hours a day and it received education at least for two hours
each day. It would also be seen that the entire cost of education is borne
by the employer. [751-B]

33. The Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India
D would apprise this Court within one year about the compliance of
aforesaid directions. [750-G]

Neera Borra: "Born to Work: Child Labour in India", pp 22 to 24, 1971
Census, National Sample Survey 27th round (1972-73), Nazir Ahmad
Shah: "Child Labour in India" and Dr. Amar Singh and Raghuvinder Singh:
,, E "Causes of the exploitation of child labour in India", (1993) 3 SCJ (Journal
Section) pp 65 to 68, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 465 of
1986.

F Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner-in-person (NP).

A. Mariarputham and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the State.

G K.T.S. Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, C.B Babu, V.K. Verma
and R.A. Perumal for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
•
HANSARIA, J. "I am the child.
H All the world waits for my coming.
M. C. MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.J 731
All the earth watches with interest to see what I shall become. A
Civilization hangs in the balance,
For what I am, the world of tomorrow will be.
l am ,the child. You hold in your hand my destiny.
You determine, largely, whether I shall succeed or fail,
Give me, I pray you, these things that make for happiness.
B
Train me, I beg you, that I may be a blessing to the world".

Mamie Gene Cole

It may be that the aforesaid appeal lies at the back of the saying that
"child is the father of man". To enable fathering of a valiant and vibrant C
man, the child must be groomed well in the formative years of his life. He
·must receive education, acquire knowledge of man and materials and
blossom in such an atmosphere that oil reaching age, he is found to be a
man with a mission, a man who matters so for as the society is concerned.

2. Our Constitution makers, wise and sagacious as they were, had D
known that India of their vision would not be a reality if the children of
the country are not nurtured and educated. For this, their exploitation by
different profit makers for their persqnal gain had to be first indicted. It is
this need, which has found manifestation in Article 24, which is one of the
two provisions in part IV of our Constitution on the fundamental right E
against exploitation. The framers were aware that this prohibition alone
would not permit the child to contribute its mite to the nation building work
unless it receives at least basic education. Article 45 was therefore inserted in
our paramount parchment casting a duty on the state to endeavour to provide
free and compulsory education to children. (It is known that this provision in
Part IV of our Constitution is, after the decision by a Constitution Bench of F
this Court in Unni Krishnan, (1993] 1 SCC 645, has acquired the statns of
a fundamental right). Our constitution contains some other provisions also
to which we shall advert later, desiring that a child must be given oppor-
tunity and facility to develop in a healthy manner.

3. Despite the above, the stark reality is that in our country like many G
others, children are exploited lot. Child labour is a big problem and has
remained intractable, even after abont 50 years of our having become
independent, despite various legislative enactments, to which we shall refer
in detail subsequently, prohibiting employment of a child in a number of
occupations and avocations. H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 3A. In our country, Sivakasi was once taken as the worst offender in
the matter of violating prohibition of employing child labour. As the
situation there had became intolerable, the public spirited lawyer, Shri MC
Mehta, thought it necessary to invoke this court's power under Article 32,
as after all the fundamental right of the children guaranteed by Article 24
B was being grossly violated. He, therefore, filed this petition. It once come
to be disposed of by an order of October 31, 1990 by noting that in Sivakasi,
as on December 31, 1985, there were 221 registered match factories
employing 27,338 workmen of whom 2941 were children. The Court then
noted that the manufacturing process of matches and fireworks (for the
manufacture of which also Sivakasi is a traditional centre) is hazardous,
C giving rise to accidents including fatal cases. So, keeping in view the
provisions contained in Articles 39(f) and 45 of the Constitution, it gave
certain directions as to how the quality of life of children employed in the
factories could be improved. The court also felt the need of constituting a
committee to oversee the directions given.
D 4. Subsequently, suo moto cognizance was taken in the present case
itself when news about an "unfortunate accident", in one of the Sivakasi
cracker factories was published. At the direction of the Court, Tamil Nadu
Government filed a detailed counter stating, inter alia, that number of
persons to die was 39. The Court gave certain directions regarding the
E payment of compensation and thought that an advocates committee should
visit the area and make a comprehensive report relating to the various
aspects of the matter, as mentioned in the order of August 14, 1991. The
committee was to consist of (1) Shri R.K. Jain, a senior advocate; (2) Ms.
Indira Jaisingh, another senior advocate; and (3) Shri KC Dua, Advocate.

F 5. The committee has done a commendable job. It submitted its
report on 11.11.91 containing may recommendations, the summary of which
is to be found at pages 24-25 of the report, reading as below:

(a) State of Tamilnadu shall be directed to ensure that children
G are not employed in fire works factories.

(b) The children employed in the match factories for packing .
purposes must work in a separate premises for packing.

(c) Employers should not be permitted to take work from the
H children for more than six hours a day.
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 733

(d) Proper transport facilities should be provided by the employers A
and State Govt. for travelling of the children from their homes to
their work places and back.

(e) Facilities for recreation, socialisation and education should be
provided either in the factory or close to the factory.
B
(I) Employers should make arrangements for providing basic diets
for the children and in case they fail to do so, the Government
may be directed to provide for basic diet - one meal a day
programme of the State of Tamil Nadu for school children may be
extended to the child worker.
c
(g) Piece-rate wages should be abolished and payment should be
made on monthly basis. Wages should be commensurate to the
work done by the children.

(h) All the workers working in the industry, whether in registered D
factories or in unregistered factories, whether in cottage industry
or on contract basis, should be brought under the Insurance
Scheme.

(i) Welfare Fund - For Sivakasi area, instead of present committee,
a committee should be headed by a retired High Court Judge or E
a person of equal status with two social workers, who should be
answerable either to this Hon'ble Court or to the High Court as
may be directed by this Hon'ble Court. Employers should be
directed to deposit Rs. 2 per month per worker towards welfare
fund and the State should be directed to give the matching con-
tribution. The employers of all the industries, whether it is F
registered or unregistered, whether it is cottage industry or on
contract basis, to deposit Rs. 2 per month per worker.

G) A National Commission for children's welfare should be set up
to prepare a scheme for child labour abolition in a phased manner. G
Such a Commission should be answerable to this Hon'ble Court
directly and should report to this Hon'ble Court at periodical
intervals about the progress.

6. We put on record our appreciation for the commendable work
done by the committee. H
734 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996}SUPP.9S.C.R.

A 7. There is an affidavit of the President of the All India Chamber of
Match Industries, Sivakasi, on record which contains its reaction to the
recommendations of Committee. It is not necessary to deal with this
affidavit. Objection to the Committee's recommendations was also filed by
the President of Tamilnadu Fireworks and Amorces Manufactures As-
sociation. We do not propose to traverse this affidavit as well. Both of these
B
contain general statements and denial of what was found by the committee.

8. For the sake of completeness, it may be stated that there are on
record various reports relating to working conditions etc. of child labour
at Sivakasi. First of these reports is of a Committee which had been
C constituted by the Labour Department by the Tamilnadu Government vide
its GO MS. dated 19.3.84, under the Chairmanship of Thiru N Haribhas-
kar. The report of the Committee is voluminous, as it runs into 181 pages
·and contains a number of annexures. The Committee reviewed the working
conditions and measures taken to mitigate the sufferings of the child labour
D and has made various recommendations in Chapter XI of its r.eport. We
also have a work of Collector of Kamarajar District titled "Integrated
Project for the Betterment of Living Conditions of Women and Children
Employed in Match Factories in Sivakasi area." This work is of October
1985. There is yet another report dealing with the causes and circumstances
of the fire explosions which had taken place on 12.7.91 at Dawn Amorces
E Fireworks Industries and it contains remedial measures .. The final report
relating to Sivakasi workers is of 30th March, 1993 this relates to elimina-
tion of child labour in the match and firework industries in Tamilnadu. The
representatives of the Department of Labour & Employment, Social Wel-
fare and Education had prepared this report in collaboration with
F UNICEF and it speaks of "A proposed strategy framework."

9. The Government of India as well has been apprising itself about
the various aspects relating to child labour in various industries. A 16
member committee had come to be set up by a resolution of the Labour
Ministry dated 6/7 February, 1979 under the chairmanship of Shri M.S.
G Gurupadaswamy. The Committee submitted its report on 29.12.79 and
made various recommendations which are contained in Chapter V. The
Labour Ministry, had subsequently surveyed the problem of child labour
departmentally as a part of the observance of International Child Year
Programme. The report (dated 24.6.81) mentions about the survey con-
H ducted in certain organised and unorganised sector of industries. It con-
M. C. MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIAJ.] 735

tains an account of employment, wages and earnings, working conditions A
and welfare activities relating to child labour both in organised and unor-
ganised sectors. Chapter III of the report contains the conclusions, of
which what has been stated in para 4.5. deserves to be noted. The same is
as below:
B
Extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for gainful employment aud
intermittancy of income and low standards of living are the main
reasons for the wide prevalence of child labour. Though it is
possessible to identify child labour in the organised sector, which
form a minuscule of the total child labour, the problem relates
mainly to the unorganised sector where utmost attention needs to c
be paid. The problem is universal but in our case it is more crucial.

Magnitude of the problem.

10. Sivakasi has ceased to be the only centre employing child labour. D
The· malady is no longer confined to that place.

11. A write-up in Indian Express of 25.10.1996 has described Bhav-
nagar as another Sivakasi in making, as that town of about 4 lakh popula-
tion has at least 13,000 children employed in 300 different industries. The E
problem of child labour in India has indeed spread its fang far and wide.
This would be apparent from the chart which finds place in the commen-
dable work of a social anthropologist of United Nations Volunteer, Neera
Burra, published under the title "Born to Work : Child Labour in India",
as at page XXII to XXIV of the book. It is useful to extract that chart. It
is as below : F

Industry Location Total Child Percentage of
Workers Workers Child Workers
to iotal workers

Slate Mandsaur,
12,000 1,000 8.3 G
Pencil Madhya Pradesh
Slate Markapur
15,000 app.3750 25
AndhraPradesh
Diamond Surat, Gujarat
100,000 15,000 15
cutting
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A Agate- Cambay, Gujarat not
30,000 ---
cutting known
Gem Jaipur,
60,000 13,600 22.6
Polishing Rajas than
Powerloom Bhiwandi,
B Maharashtra
300,000 15,000 5

Cotton Tiruppur,
30,000 8,000 33.3
hosiery Tamilnadu
Carpet Mirzapur -

c Weaving Bhadohi
Uttar Pradesh
200,000 150,000 75

Carpet Jammu & App.
100,000 25
weaving Kashmir· 400,000
Carpet Rajasthan 30,000 12,000
40
D weavmg
Lock- Aligarh, Uttar 80,000 7,000 8.7
making Pradesh 90,000 10,000 11.1 '
Pottery Khurja, 20,000 5,000
25
Uttar Pradesh
E
Brass Moradabad, 150,000 40,000 24.6
Ware Uttar Pradesh 45,000 30.6
Match Sivakasi, not 45,000
Tamil Nadu knm\/Il
---

F Glass Firozabad, 200,000 50,000
25
Uttar Pradesh
Silk and V aransi, Uttar 11,900 4,409
37
silk product~ Pradesh
Textile Varansi, Uttar 3,512 1,108
31.5
G Pradesh
Knives Rampur Uttar not 3,000
---
Pradesh known

Handicrafts Janunu&
90,000 26,478 29.42
Kashmir
H
M. C. MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 737

Silk weaving Bihar not A
know
10,000 ---
Brocade and Varansi and
not
Zari industry other centres,
know
300,000 ---
Uttar Pradesh
Brick-kilns West Bengal not B
known
35,000 ---

Beedi India 3,275,000 3,275,00 10
Circus Industry 40 major 12% of
circuses the
--- entire --- c
labour
strength
Handloom and Jamrnu &
Handicraft Kashmir 116,000 28,348 25
Industry D

(Source material omitted)

11. According to the 1971 census 4.66 per cent of the cbild popula-
tion in India consisted of working children. In absolute numbers, the 1971 E
census put the figure at 10.7 million working children. On the basis of
National Sample Survey 27th round (1972-73) the number of working
children as on March, 1973 in the age group of 5-14 years' may be
estimated at 16.3 million and based on the 32 round at 16.25 million on 1st
March, 1978 (14.68 million rural and 1.57 million urban). According to
1981 census the figure has gone to 11.16 million working children. As F
estimated by the Planning Commission on !st March, 1983, there would be
15.70 million child labourers, (14.03 rural and 1.67 urban) in the age group
of 10-14 years' and 17.36 million in the age group of 5-14 years'. The
National Sample Survey Organisation estimates the number at 17.58 million
in 1985. None of the official estimates included child workers in the G
unorganised sector, and therefore, are obviously gross under estimates.
Estimates from various non-governmental sources as to the actual number
working children range from 44 million to 100 million.

(Figures of 1981 census have been quoted because the report relating
to 1981 census has not yet been made public. It is understood that the same H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 s.c.R,.
A is under publication.

12. The aforesaid profile shows that child labour by now is an
all-India evil, though its acuteness differs from area to area. So, without a
concerted effort, both of the Central Government and various State
Governments, this ignominy would not get wiped out. We have, therefore,
B thought it fit to travel beyond the confines of Sivakasi to which place this
petition initially related. In our view, it would be more appropriate to deal
with the issue in wider spectrum and broader perspective taking it as a
national problem and not appertaining to any one region of the country.
So, we would address ourselves as to how we can, and are required to,
C tackle the problem of child labour, solution of which is necessary to build
a better India.

Constitution call

13. To accomplish the aforesaid task, we have first to note the
D Constitutional mandate and call on the subject, which are contained in the
following articles:

"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 employ-
E
ment.

39.(e). that the health and strength of workers, men and women,
and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are
not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to
F their age or strength;

39(1). that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop
in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and
that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and
against moral and material abandonment.
G
41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain
cases. - The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity
and development, make effective provision for securing the right
to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of un-
H employment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.) 739
/ A
of undeserved want.

45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children. - The
State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from
the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory
education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen
years. B

47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard
of living and to improve public health. - The State shall regard the
raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its primary C
duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for medical purposes of
intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health."

14. Of the aforesaid provisions, the one finding place in Article 24
has been a fundamental right ever since 28th January, 1950. Article 45 too D
has been raised to high pedestal by Unni krishnan, which was decided on
4th February, 1993. Though other articles are part of directive principles,
they are fundamental in the governance of our country and it is the duty
of all the organs of the State (a la Article 37) to apply these principles.
Judiciary, being also one of the three principal organs of the State, has to E
keep the same in mind when called upon to decide matters of great public
importance. Abolition of child labour is definitely a matter of great public
concern and significance.

International commitment
F
15. It would be apposite to apprise ourselves also about our commit-
ment to world community. For the case at hand it would be enough to note
that India has accepted the convention on the Rights of the Child, which
was concluded by the UN General Assembly on 20th November, 1989. This
Convention affirms that children's right require special protection and it G
aims, not only to provide such protection, but also to ensure the continuous
improvement in the situation of children all over the world, as well as their
development and education in conditions of peace and security. Thus, the
Convention not only protects the child's civil and political right, but als0
extends protection to child's economic, social, cultural and humanitarian
rights. H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 ~.C.R.

A 16. The Government of India deposited its instrument of accession
to the above-mentioned conventions on December 11, 1992 with the United
Nation's Secretary-General. That instrument contains the following decla-
ration.

"While fully subscribing to the objectives and purposes of the
B convention, realising that certain of the rights of the child, namely
those pertaining to the economic social and cultural rights can only
be progressively implemented in the developing countries, subject
to the extent of available resources and within the framework of
international co-operation; recognising that the child has to be
c protected from exploitation of all forms including economic ex-
ploitation; noting that for several reasons children of different ages
do work in India; having prescribed minimum ages for employment
in hazardous occupations and in certain other areas; having made
regulatory provisions regarding hours and conditions of employ-
ment; and being aware that it is not practical immediately to
D prescribe minimum ages for admission to each and every area of
employment in India the Government of India undertakes to take
measures to progressively implement the provisions of Article 32,
particularly paragraph 2(a), in accordance with its national legis-
lation and relevant international instruments to which it is a State
E Party."

17. Article 32 of which mention has been made in the instrument of
accession reads as below :

"l. States Parties recognise the right of the child to be protected
F from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is
likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child's education, or
to be harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual,
moral or social development.

2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and
G educational measures to ensure the implementation of the
present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant
provisions of other international instruments, States parties shall
in particular :

H (a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 741

to employment' A

(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and condi-
tions of employment;

(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure
the effective enforcement of the present article." B

Statutory provisions

18. We may now note as to how the problem of child labour has been
viewed by our policy makers and what efforts have been made to take care C
of this evil. We have shown our concern in this sphere ever since the
International Labour Organisation, set up in 1919 under the League of
Nations, had felt that there should be international guidelines by which the
employment of children under a certain age could be regulated in industrial
undertakings. It, therefore, suggested that the minimum age of work be 12
years. The same required ratification by the Government of British India; D
and during the Legislative Assembly debates, the question of raising the
minimum age from 9 to 12 years had created a furore. The Hon'ble Sir
Thomas Helland had said in the Legislative Assembly in February 1921
that if the minimum age were raised, the same would upset the organisa-
tional set-up of most textile mills which were the principal employees of E
children. On the oiher hand, there were those who felt that the answer to
the problem lay in compulsory primary education. The House ultimately
was divided with 32 members voting for raising the minimum age to 12 and
40 voting against it. The Assembly, therefore, recommended to the Gover-
nor General-in-Council that the Draft Convention should be ratified with
certain observations. F

19. May it be stated that the International Labour Organisation has
been playing an important role in the process .of gradual elimination of
child labour and to protect child from industrial exploitation. It has focused
five main issues : G
l. Prohibition of children labour.

2. Protecting child labour at work.

3. Attacking the basic causes of child labour. H
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A 4. Helping children to adopt to future work.

5. Protecting the children of working parents.

Till now 18 Conventions and 16 recommendations have been adopted
by the !LO in the interest of working children all over the world.
B
20. To continue our narration of steps taken here, a Royal Commis-
sion on Labour came to be established in 1929 to inquire into various
matters relating to labour in this country. The report came to be finalised
in 1931. It brought to light many inequities and shocking conditions under
C which children worked. The Commission had examined the conditions of
child labour in different industries and had found that children had been
obliged to work any number of hours per day as required by their masters.
It was also found that they were subject to corporal punishment. The
Commission had felt great concern at the placing of children by parents to
employers in return for small sums of money; and as this system was found
D to be indefensible it recommended that any bond placing a child should be
regarded as void.

21. The recommendations of the Commission came to be discussed
in the Legislative Assembly and the Children (Pledging of Labour) Act,
1933 came to be passed, which may be said to be the first statutory
E enactment dealing with child labour. Many statutes came to be passed
thereafter. As on today, the following legislative enactmen\s are in force
prohibiting employment of child labours in different occupations :

(i) Section 67 of Factories Act, 1948 :
F
"Prohibition of employment of young children-No child who
has not completed his fourteenth year shall be required or allowed
to work in any factory."

(ii) Section 24 of Plantation Labour Act, 1951:
G
"No child who has not completed his twelfth year shall be
required or allowed to work in any plantation".

(iii) Section 109 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1951 :
I

H "No person under fifteen years of age shall be engaged. or

I·
M.C.MEHT:"- v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.] 743

carried to sea to work in any capacity in any ship, except - A
(a) in a school ship, or training ship, in accordance with the
prescribed conditions; or

(b) in a ship in which all persons employed are members of one
~~m B
(c) in a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross; or

(d) where such person is to be employed on nominal wages and
will be in the charge of his father of other adult near male relative."
c
(iv) Section 45 of Mines Act, 1952 :

(1) "No child shall be employed in any mine, nor shall any child
be allowed to be present in any part of a mine which is below
ground or in any (open cast working) in which any mining opera-
tion is being carried on. D
(2) After such dale as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf, no child shall be
allowed to be present in any part of a mine above ground where
any operation connected with or incidental to any mining operation
is being carried on.11 E

(v) Section 21 of Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 :

"No child shall be required or allowed to work in any capacity
in any motor transport undertaking.'
F
(vi) Section 3 of Apprentices Act, 1961 :

Qualifications for being engaged as an apprentice : A person shall
not be qualified for being engaged as an apprentice to undergo
apprenticeship training in any designated trade, unless he-
G
(a) is not less than fourteen years of age, and

(b) satisfies such standards of education and physical fitness as
may be prescribed :

Provided that different standards may be prescribed in relation to H
744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.~ S.C.R.

A apprenticeship training in different designated trades and for dif-
ferent categories of apprentices.

(vii) Section 24 of Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of
Employment Act, 1966 :

B "Prohibition of employment of children-No child shall be re-
quired or allowed to work in any industrial premises."

(vii) Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. (Act
61of1986).

c (ix) Shops and Commercial Establishment Acts under different
nomenclatures in various States.

22. The aforesaid shows that the legislature has strongly desired
prohibition of child labour. Act 61 of 1986 is, ex facie, a bold step. The
D provisions of this Act, other than Part III, came into force at once and for
part III to come into force, a notification by the Central Government is
visualised by section 1(3), which notification covering all classes of estab-
lishments throughout the territory of India was issued on May 26, 1993.

23. Section 3 of this Act has prohibited employment of children in
E certain occupations and processes. Part A of the Schedule to the Act
contains the names of the occupations in which no child can be employed
or permitted to work; and in Para B names of some processes have been
mentioned in which no child can be employed or permitted to work. It
would be profitable to quote Parts A and B of the Schedule which read as
p below:

Part A:
Occupations

Any occupation connected with
G
( 1) transport of passengers, goods or mails by railway ;

(2) cinder picking, clearing of an ash pit or building operation in
the railway premises;

H (3) work in a catering establishment at a railway station involving
M.C.MEHTA v. STAIB [HANSARLU.J 745

the movement of a vendor or any other employee of the A
establishment from one platform to another or into or out of
a moving train;

(4) work relating to the construction of a railway station or with
any other work where such work is done in close proximity
to or between the railway lines; and B

(5) a port authority within the limits of any port.

Part B :
Processes
c
(1) Bidi-making.

(2) Carpet-weaving.

(3) Cement manufacture, including bagging of cement.
D
(4) Cloth printing, dyeing and weaving.

(5) Manufacture of matches, explosives and fire-works.

(6) Mica-cutting and splitting.
E
(7) Shellac manufacture.

(8) Soap manufacture.

(9) Tanning.

(10) Wool-cleaning. F

(11) Building and construction industry.

24. Section 14 of the Act has provided for punishment upto 1 year
(minimum being 3 months) or with fine upto Rs. 20,000 (minimum being G
ten thousand) or with both, to one who employs or permits any child to
work in contravention of provisions in section 3. Even so, it is common
experience that child labour continues to be employed. As to why this has
happened despite the Act of 1986, has come to be discussed by Neera
Burra, in her afore- mentioned book at pages 246 to 250 of the 1995 edition.
It has been first pointed out that the occupations and processes dealt by H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A the Act are same about which the replealed statute {Employment of
Children Act, 1938) had mentioned, except that in Part B, one process has
been added the same being "building and construction industry". According
to Neera, there are a number of loopholes in the Act which has made it
"completely ineffective instrument for the removal of children working in
industry". One of the clear loopholes mentioned is that children can
B
continue to work if they are a part of family of labour. It is not necessary
for our purpose to go into other infirmities pointed out. Nonetheless, it
deserves to be pointed out that the Act does not use the word "hazardous"
anywhere, the implication of which is the children may continue to work
in those processes not involving chemicals. Neera has tried to show how
C impracticable and unrealistic it is to draw a distinction between hazardous
and non-hazardous processes in a particular industry. The suggestion given
is that what is required is to list the whole industry as banned for child
labour, which would make the task of enforcement simpler and strategies
of evasion more difficult.
D
Failure : causes

25. We have, therefore, to see as to why is it that child labour has
continued despite the aforesaid statutory enactments. This has been a
subject of study by a good number of authors. It would be enough to
E note what has been pointed out in "Indian Child Labour" by Dr. J.C.
Kulshreshtha. This aspect has been dealt in Chapter II. According to the
author, the causes of failure are : (1) poverty; (2) low wages of the adult;
(3) unemployment; (4) absence of schemes for family allowance; (5) migra-
tion to urban areas; (6) large families: (7) children being cheaply available;
p (8) non-existence of provisions for compulsory education; (9) illiteracy and
ignorance of parents; and (10) traditional attitudes. Nazir Ahmad Shah has
also expressed similar views in his book "Child Labour in India". In the
article at pages 65 to 68 of 1993(3) SO (Journal Section) titled "Causes of
the exploitation of child labour in India", Dr. Ainar Singh and Raghuvinder
Singh, who are attached to Himachal Pradesh University, have taken the
G same views.

26. Of the aforesaid causes, it seems to us that the poverty is basic
reason which compels parents of a child, despite their unwillingness, to get
it employed. The Survey Report of the Ministry of Labour (supra) had also
H so stated. Otherwise, no parents, specially no mother, would like that a
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA.J.] 747

tender aged child should toil in a factory in a difficult condition, instead A
of it enjoying its childhood at home under the paternal gaze.

What to do ?

27. It may be that the problem would be taken care of to some extent B
by insisting on compulsory education. Indeed, Neera thinks that if there is
at all a blueprint for tackling the problem of child labour, it is education.
Even if it were to be so, the child of a poor parent would not receive
education if per force it has to earn to make the family meet both the ends.
Therefore, unless the family is assured of income aliunde, problem of child
labour would hardly get solved; and it is this vital question which has c
remained almost unattended. We are, however, of the view that till an
alternative income is assured to the family, the question of abolition of
child labour would really remain a will-o-the wisp. Now, if employment of
child below the age of 14 is a constitutional indiction insofar as work in
any factory or mine on engagement in other hazardous work, and if it has D
to be seen that all children are given education till the age of 14 years in
view of this being a fundamental right now, and if the wish embodied in
Article 39(e) that the tender age of children is not abused and citizens are
not forced by economic necessity to enter avocation unsuited to their age,
and if children are to be given opportunities and facilities to develop in a
healthy manner and childhood is to be protected against exploitation as E
visualised by Article 39(1), it seems to us that the least we ought to do is
see to the fulfilment of legislative intendment behind enactment of the
Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Taking guidance
therefrom, we are of the view that the offending employer must be asked
to pay compensation for every child employed in contravention of the F
provisions of the Act a sum of Rs. 20,000; and the Inspectors, whose
appointment is visualised by section 17 to secure compliance with the
provisions of the Act, should do this job. The inspectors appointed under
section 17 should see that for each child employed in violation of the
provisions of the Act, the concerned employer pays Rs. 20,000 which sum
could be deposited in a fund to be known as Child Labour Rehabilitation- G
cum-welfare fund. The liability of the employer would not cease even if he
would desire to disengage the child presently employed. It would perhaps
be appropriate to have such a fund district wise or areawise. The fund so
generated shall form corpus whose income shall be used only for the
concerned child. This quantum could be the income earned on the corpus H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A deposited qua the child. To generate greater income, fund can be
deposited in high yielding scheme of any nationalised bank or other public
body.

28. As the aforesaid income could not be enough to dissuade the
parent/guardian to seek employment of the child, the State owes a duty to
B come forward to discharge its obligation in this regard. After all, the
aforementioned constitutional provisions have to be implemented by the
Appropriate Government, which expression has been defined in section
2(i) of the Act to mean, in relation to establishment under the control of
the Central Government or a railway administration or a major port of a
C mine or oilfield, the Central Government, and in all other eases, the State
Government.

29. Now, strictly speaking a strong case exists to invoke the aid of an
Article 41 of the Constitution regarding the right to work and to give
D meaning to what has been provided in Article. 47 relating to raising of
standard of living of the population, and Articles 39(e) and (t) as to
non-abuse of tender age of children and giving opportunities and facilities
to them to develop in healthy manner, for asking the State to see that an
adult member of the family, whose Child is in employment in a factory or
a mine or in other hazardous work, gets a job anywhere, in lieu of the child.
E This would also see the fulfilment of the wish contained in Article 41 after
about half a century of its being in the paramount parChment, like primary
education desired by Article 45, having been given the status of fundamen-
tal right by the decision in Unni Krishnan. We are, however, not asking the
State at this stage to ensure alternative employment in every case covered
by Article 24, as Article 41 speaks about right to work "within the limits of
F the economic capacity and development of the State". The very large
number of Child labour in the aforesaid occupations would require gi\>ing
of job to very large number of adults, if we were to ask the Appropriate
Government to assure alternative employment in every case, which would
strain the resources of the State, in case it would not have been able to
G secure job for an adult in a private sector establishment or, for that matter,
in a public sector organisation. We, we are not issuing any direction to do 1
so presently. Instead, we leave the matter to be sorted out by the Ap-
propriate Government. In those cases where it would not be possi):>le to l
provide job as above-mentioned, the Appropriate Government would, as
it contribution/grant, deposit in the aforesaid Fund a sum of Rs. 5,000 for
H each Child employed in a factory or mine or in any other hazardous
M.C.MEHTA v. STATE [HANSARIA,J.J 749

employment. A

30. The aforesaid would either see an adult (whose name would be
suggested by the parent/guardian of the concerned child) getting a job in
lieu of the child, or deposit of a sum of Rs. 25,000 in the Child Labour
Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund. In case of getting employment for an
adult, the parent/guardian shall have to withdraw his child from the job. B
Even if no employment would be provided, the parent/guardian shall have
to see that his child is spared from the requirement to do the job, as an
alternative source of income would have become available to him.

31. To give shape to the aforesaid directions, we require the con-
cerned States to .do the following : c
(1) A survey would be made of the aforesaid type of child labour
which would be completed within six months from today.

(2) To start with, work could be taken up regarding those employ-
ments which have been mentioned in Article 24, which may be regarded D
as core sector, to determine which the hazardous aspect of the employment
would be taken as criterion. The most hazardous employment may rank
first in priority, to be followed by comparatively less hazardous and so on.
It rnay be mentioned here that the National Child Labour Policy as
announced by the Government of India has already identified some in- E
dustries for priority action and the industries to identified are as below :

The match industry in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu.

The diamond polishing industry in Surat, Gujarat.
F
The precious stone polishing industry in Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The glass industry in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The brass-ware industry in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh.
G
The hand-made carpet industry in Mirzapur-Bhadohi, Uttar
Pradesh.

The lock-making industry in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.

The slate industry in Markapur, Andhra Pradesh. H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A The slate industry in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh.

(3) The employment to be given as per our direction could be
dovetailed to other assured employment. On this being done, it is apparent
that our direction would not require generation of much additional employ-
ment.
B
(4) The employment so given could as well be the industry where the
child is employed, a public undertaking and would be manual in nature
inasmuch as the child in question must be engaged in doing manual work.
The undertaking chosen for employment shall be one which is nearest to
C the place of residence of the family.

(5) In those cases where alternative employment would not be made
.. available as aforesaid, the parent/guardian of the concerned child would
be paid the income which would be earned on the corpus, which would be
a sum of Rs. 25,000 for each child, every month. The employment given or
D payment made would cease to be operative if the child would not be sent
by the parent/guardian for education.

(6) On discontinuation of the employment of the child, his education
would be assured in suitable institution with a view to make it a better
citizen. It may be pointed out that Article 45 mandates compulsory educa-·
E tion for all children until they complete the age of 14 years; it is also
required to be free. It would be the duty of the Inspector lo see that this
·-
call of the Constitution is carried out.

(7) A ·district could be the unit of collection so that the executive
head of the district keeps a watchful eye on the work of the Inspectors.
Further, in view of the magnitude of the task, a separate cell in the Labour
F
Department of the appropriate Government would be created. Monitoring
of the scheme would also be necessary and the Secretary of the Depart-
ment could perhaps do this work. Overall monitoring by the Ministry of
Labour. Government of India, would be beneficial and worthwhile .
•
G (8) The Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India
would apprise this Court within one year of today about the compliance of
aforesaid directions. If the petitioner would need any further or other order
in the light of the compliance report, it would be open to him to do so.

(9) We should also like to observe that on the directions given being
H carried out, penal provision contained in the aforenoted 1986 Act would
M.C.MEHTA v. STAIB [HANSARIA,J.] 751

be used where employment of a child labour, prohibited by the Act, would A
be found.

(10) Insofar as the non-hazardous jobs are concerned, the Inspector
shall have to see that the working hours of the child are not more than four
to six hours a day and it receives education al least for two hours each day.
It would also be seen that the entire cost of education is borne by the
B
employer.

32. The task is big, but not as to prove either unwieldy or burden-
some. the financial implication would be such as to prove a damper,
because the money after all would be used to build up a better India. In C
this context, it is worth pointing out that poverty as such has not stood in
the way of other developing countries from taking care of child labour. It
has been pointed out by Myron Weiner (at page 4 of 1991 Edition) of his
book "The Child and the State in India" that India is a significant exception
to the global trend toward the removal of children from the labour force D
and the establishment of compulsory, universal primary school education,
as many countries of Africa like Zambia, Ghana Ivory Coast, Libya, Zam-
bia, Zimbabwe, with income levels lower than India, have done better in
these matter. This shows that has caused the problem of child labour to
persist here is really not dearth of resources, but lack of real zeal. Let this
~·
not continue. Let us all put our head and efforts together and assist the E
child for its good and greater good of the country.

33. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

34. We part with the fond hope that the closing years of the twentieth F
century would see us keeping the promises made to our children by our
Constitution about a half-century ago. Let the child of twenty-first century
find himself into that "heaven of freedom" of which our poet laureate
Rabindranath Tagore has spoken in Gitanjali.

35. Let a copy of this judgment is to be sent to Chief Secretaries of G
all the State governments and Union Territories; so also to the Secretary,
Ministry of Labour, Government of India for their information and doing
. the needful.

v.s.s. Petition disposed of.