Supreme Court of India
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIESversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 472
- Decided
- 15 October 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Court held that all States and Union Territories must conduct periodic three‑year surveys, reconstitute vigilance committees, adopt the prescribed identification methodology, and enhance rehabilitation funds, with the NHRC empowered to monitor compliance and seek further judicial intervention if necessary.
Summary
The Public Union for Civil Liberties filed a public‑interest writ petition seeking enforcement of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and the rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers. The Supreme Court examined the persistent non‑compliance of several states and Union Territories with earlier court directions and with the monitoring role assigned to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Relying on constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 23 and on precedents that inadequate rehabilitation violates fundamental rights, the Court reiterated that states must conduct fresh surveys every three years, reconstitute vigilance committees, and increase the rehabilitation package beyond the existing Rs.20,000 limit. The Court also directed that the NHRC continue to supervise implementation and may approach the Court for further orders if states fail to comply. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with detailed directions to the states, Union Territories, and the NHRC.
Issues considered
- Whether the State governments and Union Territories have complied with earlier Supreme Court directions under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
- Whether the NHRC can be empowered to monitor and enforce compliance with the Act and related statutes.
- What further measures are necessary to identify bonded labourers, ensure their rehabilitation, and eradicate the practice.
- Whether the existing rehabilitation package of Rs.20,000 is constitutionally adequate.
- Whether periodic reporting and survey methodology prescribed by the Court must be strictly followed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
bonded labourrehabilitationvigilance committeesNHRCperiodic surveysright to educationminimum wageschild labourpublic interest litigation
Judgment
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 579
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES A
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3922 of 1985)
OCTOBER 15, 2012
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.)
BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1976:
ss. 10, 11 and 12 - Bonded labour - Abolition of - c
Rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers - Directions issued
to States/Union Territories to conduct periodical surveys in
accordance with provisions of the Act, to calculate firm
requirement of funds for rehabilitation of freed bonded
labourers and to take steps to enhance the rehabilitation 0
package - States and UTs should continue. to submit six
monthly reports to NHRC and the latter would effectively
supervise and take appropriate steps for carrying out the
provisions of the Act and directions issued by the Court - Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Workmen's Compensation Act, E
1923 - Inter State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 - Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Public interest
litigation.
The instant writ petition was filed as public interest F
litigation in order to seek checking the practice of bonded
labour and to rehabilitate the victims of such practice. The
Court gave various directions including the setting up of
Vigilance Committees, for the purpose of identifying and
freeing the bonded labourers and to draw up a scheme G
or programme for a better and more meaningful
rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers and to
ensure implementation of the Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976. The Court, while dealing with the
579 H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A instant case, by an interim order dated 13.5.19941, gave
various directions.By order dated 11.05.1997, the
National Human Rights Commission was entrusted with
the responsibility of monitoring and over-seeing the
implementation of the directions issued by the Court as
B well as provisions of the 1976 Act in all the States and
Union Territories. The Expert Group constituted by the
NHRC submitted its Action Taken Report on 6.6.2001 and
the Court by order dated 5.5.2004 gave further directions.
The NHRC in its report stated that even though the
c guidelines on the methodology of identification of
bonded labourers formulated by the Chairman of the
Expert Group constituted in the year 2001-02 had been
circulated to all the States/UTs but there was no evidence
of their being adopted and implemented. The Court by its
order dated 9.7.2010, directed all the States/UTs to file
0
their response to the NHRC's report, and by orders dated
16.12.2010, 25.4.2011, 26.8.2011 gave further directions.
The NHRC submitted its revised report dated 3.9.2011. It
is noticed that the response from the States concerned
E to the said report was not satisfactory.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is unnecessary to dilate the matter
further. Suffice it to say that on 30.6.2011, in all 2780
F cases involving about 1 lakh bonded labourers have been
registered in the Commission and as on date, 841 cases
are under consideration of the Commission. The NHRC
also brought to the knowledge of this Court, specific
complaints, which are pending for compliance before the
G Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Governments of
West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and NCT of Delhi. The
NHRC has sought proper directions from this Court so
that the States concerned would take steps for reporting
compliance to NHRC at the earliest. [para 14] [595-F-G]
H 4. Public Union For Civil Liberties vs. State of T.N. 1994 (5) SCC 116.
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 581
TAMIL NADU & ORS.
1.2 Taking note of the previous orders passed by this A
Court apart from the directions already issued, the Court
gives the following directions:
(1) Fresh surveys be conducted periodically once
in three years in all the States/UTs in
B
accordance with the provisions of the Act and
the revised report, the findings of the survey
should be made a part of a computerized data
base available on the websites of all
concerned.
c
(2) The responsibility of conducting the surveys
is on the District Level Vigilance Committees
and Sub Divisional Vigilance Committees of
the States/UTs and such Committees should
submit their reports to the NHRC. This should D
be done in every three years and Committees
also should be reconstituted in every three
years.
(3) Bonded labour, it may be noticed, is rampant E
in brick kilns, stone quarries, crushing mines,
beedi manufacturing, carpet weaving,
construction industries, agriculture, in rural
and urban unorganized and informal sector,
power looms and cotton handlooms, fish
processing etc. The Vigilance Committees are F
directed to give more attention to these areas
and take prompt action in case violation is
noticed.
(4) Large numbers of children are working as G
domestic help in the urban, town and rural
areas with no chance to go to schools even
though the education from standard I to VIII is
compulsory under the Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Local Panchayats and local bodies should
identify such children and ensure that they get
proper education.
(5) Many of the States/UTs are reporting NIL
status with respect to existence of Bonded
B
labourers. This might be due to the faulty
methodology adopted by them for conducting
such surveys. Guidelines on the methodology
of identification of bonded labourers
formulated by SR Shankaran, Chairman of the
Expert Group constituted by the NHRC be
followed and implemented by all the States/
UTs with suitable modifications to suit local
conditions.
(6) All the States/UTs should calculate firm
requirements of fund for rehabilitation of freed
bonded labourers and steps be taken to
enhance the rehabilitation package from the
present limit of Rs.20,000.
(7) The District Magistrates are directed to
effectively implement ss. 10, 11 and 12 of the
Act and they are expected to discharge their
functions with due diligence, with empathy
and sensitivity, taking note of the fact that the
Act is a welfare legislation.
(8) The District Magistrate and the State
Government/UTs would see that the Minimum
Wages Act, the Workmen's Compensation Act,
the Inter- State Migrant Workmen Act, Child
Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act are
also properly and effectively implemented.
(9) Directions are issued to all Gram Panchayats,
local bodies to report, in case they come
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 583
TAMIL NADU & ORS.
across any case of bonded labour, to the A
District Magistrate who will take appropriate
follow up action under the Act.
(10) The States of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal,
Jharkhand, Bihar and the NCT of Delhi are
B
directed to ensure compliance with orders
passed by the NHRC as highlighted in its
revised report.
(11) The States and the Union Territories should
continue to submit 6 monthly reports to NHRC. c
(12) All the StateslUTs to constitute Vigilance
Committee, if not already constituted within six
months. [para 16] [597-F-H; 598-A-H; 599-A-G] D
1.3 This Court has already given various directions
in its order dated 5.5.2004 passed in Public Union for
Civil Liberties, authorizing the NHRC to monitor the
implementation of the provisions of the 1976 Act which
are re-iterated and NHRC is directed to effectively monitor E
and implement the provisions of the Act. The orders
passed by this Court, time to time, in writ petitions are to
be duly complied with the NHRC, Union of India, States
and UTs. [para 17] [599-H; 560-A-B]
F
Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu &
=
Ors. 2004 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 64 (2004) 12 SCC 381 - referred
to.
1.4 The NHRC would take appropriate steps and
effectively supervise for carrying out the directions G
issued by this Court and the provision of BLS (A) Act. If
the StateslUTs are not implementing the directions given
by this Court, NHRC is free to move this Court for further
orders. [para 18] [560-C-D]
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 1984 (2) SCR
67 = 1984 (3) SCC 161 (1984) 3 SCC 161, Neerja Chaudhary
v. State of MP. (1984) 3 SCC 243; P. Sivaswamy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 346 = (1988) 4 SCC
466 - cited.
B
Case Law Reference:
1984 ( 2 ) SCR 67 cited para 2
(1984) 3 sec 243 cited para 2
c 1988 ( 2 ) Suppl. SCR 346 cited para 2
2004 (2 ) Suppl. SCR 64 referred to para 17
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
3922 of 1985.
D
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
A.K. Ganguli (A.C.), T.S. Doabia, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Anil
Grover, Manjit Singh, AAG's, A. Mariarputham, A.G. Gopal Jain
E (A.C.), Ugra Shankar Prasad, Sunit Sharma, S.S. Rawat,
S.W.A. Qadri, Vikas Bansal, Rashmi Malhotra, Kiran Bhardwaj,.
Md. Khairati, Anil Katiyar, S.N. Terdal, D.S. Mahra, R.K.
Panigrahi, Shobha, V.N. Raghupathy, Sunil Fernandes, Vernika
Tamar, Shanshank Kumar Lal, Deepika Ghatowar, Navnit
Kumar (for Corporate Law Group), Kirti R. Mishra, Apurna
F Upmanyu, Liz Mahtew, Sana Hashmi, Milind Kumar, Anjani
Kumar Dubey, Gopal Prasad, Vikas Upadhyay, B.S. Banthia,
Aruna Mathur, Yusuf Khan (For Arputham Aruna & Co.), Noopur
Singhal, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, S.C. Ghosh, V.G.
Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Anil
G Shrivastav, Rituraj .Biswas, Pragyan Sharma, Hoshu Kayina,
Gautam Dhamija, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal, Nandini Gupta,
Kamal Mohan 1Gupta, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra
Kumar Sinha, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Sapam Biswajit
Meitei, Naresh K. Sharma, Anis Suhrawardy, Anuvrat Sharma,
H T.V. George, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Kuldip Singh, P.V.
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 585
TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Dinesh, Rajesh Shrivastava, Asha Gopalan Nair, Gopal Singh, A
P.V. Yogeswaran, Suresh Chandra Tripathy for the Appearing
Parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Through this Public B
Litigation, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court
tell-tale miseries of bonded labourers in our country and their
exploitation and the necessity of identifying and checking the
practice of bonded labour in this country and to rehabilitate those
who are victims of this practice. C
2. This Court, while interpreting the provision of the
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, (for short 'the
BLS (A) Act) in the light of the constitutional provision like
Article 23, The Minimum Wages Act 1948, Contract Labour o
(Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, Inter-State Migrant
Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of
Service) Act 1979, The Mines Act 1952 gave various directions
including the setting up of Vigilance Committees, District
Magistrates, etc. for the purpose of identifying and freeing E
bonded labourers and to draw up a scheme or programme for
a better and more meaningful rehabilitation of the freed bonded
labourers and to ensure implementation of the BLS (A), Act,
1976. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3
SCC 161, Neerja Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (1984) 3 SCC
F
243 this Court took the view that failure to rehabilitate freed
bonded labourers would violate Articles 21 and 23 of the
Constitution. In P. Sivaswamy v. State of Andha Pradesh
(1988) 4 SCC 466 this Court held that the grant of financial
assistance by the States of Rs. 738/- per family of the released
bonded labourers was inadequate for rehabilitation. Court held G
that the States, employers have a duty to rehabilitate the
released bonded labourers.
3. This Court, dealing while dealing with this case, passed
an interim order dated 13th May, 1994, (reported in (1994) 5 H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A sec 116) and gave various directions which are as under:
"(1) To identify the bonded labourers and update the
existing list of such bonded labourers as well as to identify
the villages where this practice is prevalent.
B (2) To identify the employers exploiting the bonded
labourers and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings
against such employers.
(3) To extinguish/discharge any existing debt and or
c bonded liability and to ensure them an alternative means
of livelihood.
(4) To appoint an independent body such as a local non-
political social action group to collect independent
information and details of-
D
(a) the prevalence of the exploitative practice of
bonded labour and
(b) employers or their agents perpetrating the wilful
E violation of the law by encouraging and abetting the
practice of bonded labour.
(5) To provide employment to such bonded labourers as
agricultural workers at the prescribed minimum wage rate
and/or provide the landless bonded labourers with
F agricultural land, with a view to ensure an alternative means
of livelihood.
(6) To provide adequate shelter, food, education to the
children of the bonded labourers and medical facilities to
G the bonded labourers and their families as part of a
rehabilitation package.
(7) To ensure-
(a) regular inspection by the Labour Commissioner
H concerned to keep the contractors who have in the
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 587
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
past employed bonded labourers under watch, A
(b) setting up of Vigilance Committees in each
district,
(c) the District Magistrates concerned to send
quarterly reports to the Supreme Court Legal Aid B
Committee or to any Commissioner appointed by
the court for this purpose,
(d) the setting up of rural credit facilities such as
grameen banks, cooperatives etc. from which c
short-term interest free loans can be availed without
security, since the root cause of bonded labour
seems to be the lack of availability of funds (credit
through an institutional network).
(8) To initiate criminal prosecution against the contractors/ D
employers or their agents who engage bonded labour and
amploy children below the age of 14 without adequate
monetary compensation by paying wages below the
minimum wage rate, as prescribed under the Minimum
Wages Act. E
(9) To initiate criminal prosecution against those
employers, contractors or their agents who make part
payment of wages by way of Khesri dal which is known to
cause permanent disability - lathyrites. F
2. With specific reference to the State of Madhya Pradesh,
this Hon'ble Court gave the following additional directions:
(i) To provide data to this Hon'ble Court in respect of
prosecutions launched against various employers already G
identified in proceedings before this Hon'ble Court as
having employed bonded labourers in the context of
Harwaha System.
(ii) To investigate and provide data to this Hon'ble Court H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A in respect of the fate of those bonded labourers identified
and allegedly freed from the Harwaha System.
(iii) To report the present extent of cultivation of Khesri dal
within Rewa and Satna districts as well as such other
districts in which it may also be cultivated.
B
(iv) To report the steps taken by the State Government to
prohibit the cultivation and consumption of Khesri dal.
(v) To report the fate of persons already identified as
c suffering from lathyrites and the steps taken by the State
Government to provide free medical aid and facilities to
such persons.
(vi) To provide the steps taken, if any, for the rehabilitation
of bonded labourers freed from the Harwaha System and
D the rehabilitation of persor.ts suffering from lathyrites within
the State of Madhya Pradesh."
3. All the State Governments should issue directions
forthwith to the Collector and District Magistrate of each
E district for making the necessary compliance. We also
direct that all the State Governments would file a detailed
report supported by an affidavit of a Senior Officer
indicating the manner and the extent to which these
directions have been complied with and also indicating
F therein the programme drawn up for full implementation of
these directions. The report of the State Governments
should also contain the detailed information required to be
furnished in accordance with these directions. These
reports be filed by each State Government by the end of
G August 1994. The matter be listed in the first week of
September 1994.
4. The Registry to ensure that a copy of this order is made
available to each State Government through their standing
counsel, in addition to Mr Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate and
H the other learned counsel appearing in these matters."
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 589
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
4. The National Human Rights Commission (for short the A
'NHRC') has been entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring
and over-seeing the implementation of its directions as well as
provisions of the BLS (A) Act in all the States and Union
Territories vide this Court's order dated 11.05.1997. The Expert
Group constituted by the NHRC submitted its Action Taken B
Report (ATR) on 6.6.2001 and this Court vide order dated
5.5.2004 reported in Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 381 gave the following
directions:
"1. All States and Union Territories must submit their status C
report in the form prescribed by NHRC every six months.
2. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall
constitute Vigilance Committees at the district and sub-
divisional levels in accordance with Section 13 of the Act, o
within a period of six months from today.
3. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall
make proper arrangements for rehabilitating released
bonded labourers. Such rehabilitation could be on land-
based basis or non-land basis or skilled/craft-based basis E
depending upon the choice of bonded labourer and his/
her inclination and past experience. If the States are not
in a position to make arrangements for such rehabilitation,
then it shall identify two philanthropic organisations or
NGOs with proven track record and good reputation, with F
basic facilities for rehabilitating released bonded labourers
within a period of six months.
4. The State Governments and Union Territories shall chalk
out a detailed plan for rehabilitating released bonded G
labourers either by itself or with the involvement of such
organisations or NGOs within a period of six months.
5. The Union and State Governments shall submit a plan
within a period of six months for sharing the money under H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 9 S.C.R
A the modified Centrally Sponsored Scheme, in the case
where the States wish to involve such organisations or
NGOs.
6. The State Governments and Union Territories shall
make arrangements to sensitise the District Magistrate
B
and other statutory authorities/committees in respect of
their duties under the Act."
5. The NHRC later submitted yet another report on
10.8.2009 high-lighting the remedial steps to be taken for
C eradication of bonded labour and child labour in the country.
The NHRC in its report stated that its officials had been
conducting detailed reviews on the status of the implementation
of the Act in the various States/Union Territories (UTs). The
report stated that these reviews were forwarded by the NHRC
o to the respective States/UTs for the necessary follow up action,
and they were required to submit ATR to the NHRC. The NHRC
has stated as follows:
"ATRs have been received from most of the State
Governments but as they were incomplete they had to be
E returned for clarification and furnishing additional
information before they could be accepted by the
Commission. These States are being reminded and this
will continue till follow up action is completed. Repeat visits
to a few States (Orissa, M.P., Chattisgarh, Jharkhand,
F Punjab, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Bihar) have to be
undertaken as the track record of compliance with the
directions issued by the Commission is considered to be
unsatisfactory by these States."
G 6. A review noticed that the States/UTs were supposed to
receive assistance to the tune of Rs.2 Lakh per district once
every 3 years for conducting surveys. However surveys had
been conducted only a few States, that too in respect of only a
few selected areas. Further, it was also noted that in many
H instances bonded labourers were found and reported, the
PUBLIC-UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 591
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
district administration had relented and dropped the cases. The A
NHRC in its report cited the instances of Tamil Nadu to the
following effect:
" ..... to illustrate, in Tamil Nadu, 25000 cases out of 38,886
(cases of ) bonded labourers identified were dropped
B
leaving only 13,886 bonded labourers;
..,
I ..... in Malkangiri district (which falls in the KBK region) a
survey was conducted in 2001-02 with the help of NGO's
(where) 707 bonded labourers were identified but (the)
district administration dropped 688 cases leaving only 19 c
bonded labourers to be release."
7. The NHRC further states that Investigation/inquiry into
specific complaints about bonded labourers were generally left
by the States/UTs to be undertaken by the field officers of very D
low ranks who lack both professionalism as well as sensitivity
to conduct such inquires and even existence of bonded
labourers were detected in the States/UTs, States/UTs
permitted compromise or settlement though the Act itself does
not contemplate such a measure. The NHRC noted with
E
concern that though one of the modes of identifying and
detecting existence of bonded labour was conducting raids on
households and workplaces, this however, had not been taken
recourse to by most States, except the State of Maharashtra.
The NHRC in its report stated that even though the guidelines
on the methodology of identification of bonded labourers F
formulated by Shri S.R. Shankaran, Chairman of the Expert
Group constituted in the year 2001-02 had been circulated to
all the States/UTs but there was no evidence on the ground of
them being adopted and implemented. The report further
pointed out that according to the Ministry of Labour the following G
features came out clearly in the reports received from the
States:
"a) No fresh surveys are being conducted in the States.
Wherever surveys have been conducted in the last few H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A years, no bonded labourers could be found.
b) Whereabouts of about 20,000 bonded labourers are
reported to be untraced. Registers about bonded labourers
identified, released and rehabilitated are not being
maintained as required under Rule 7 of the BLS (A) rules.
B
c) Budget provisions are not being made on the ground
that there are no bonded labourers.
d) All the Union Territories have been reporting that they
c have no Bonded labourers."
8. The NHRC accordingly requested this Court to give the
following directions to the States/UTs:
"a) Periodical conduct of survey in the affected areas is
D one of the measures which would source eradication of
bonded labour system in compliance with the BLS (A) Act.
Section 14(e) of the Act casts a statutory responsibility on
the Vigilance Committees constituted in each district such
surveys. It suggested that fresh survey be conducted by all
E States and repeated once in three years.
b) The constitution of Vigilance Committees in all States
at district and sub-divisional level was a necessary step
in the process of property conducting surveys. Further
these committees should be reconstituted once every 2
F years.
c) Since there was a need for a proper methodology for
conducting such surveys it also suggests that the
Guidelines issued by Shri S.R. Shanakaran, Chairman of
G the Expert Committee constituted by the NHRC be
adopted with suitable modifications to suit local conditions.
d) While disposing of cases under the BLS (A) Act the
trying Magistrate should have recourse to the summary
H
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 593
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
procedure as laid down in Section 21 (2) of the Act in all A
cases brought before him.
e) It was also suggested that to make the rehabilitation
package under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme more
meaningful, there was a need for it not to be confined to B
the limit of Rs.20,000, at which it stands at present."
9. This Court, vide its order dated 9.7.2010, directed all
the States/UTs to file their response to the NHRC's report. The
States/UTs were required to respond at least on the following
aspe~: C
a) When was the last bi-annual report by the
concerned State/UT submitted to the NHRC?
b) When was the last survey, as stipulated under the
0
Act undertaken by the State/UT?
c) Whether the Vigilance Committee for the
implementation of the Act has been constituted in
all the districts in the States/UTs?
E
10. This Court vide its order dated 1.10.2010, following the
note submitted by the amicus curiae on 27.9.2010, directed the
Union of India to submit the data as to the amount which the
Centre is releasing to the States/UTs and whether they were,
in fact, using the amount for the purpose for which they were
F
released.
11. In pursuance to that order, the Union of India filed its
affidavit on 16.12.2010. It was noticed that only five states had,
till then, furnished utilization certificates to the Union of India
indicating utilization of central funds for survey. This Court, then, G
passed an order on 16.12.2010 directing the Union of India to
call for the utilization certificates from all the States. Union of
India later in its affidavit on 25.4.2011 stated that the Ministry
of Labour and Employment has provided Rs.494 lakhs as
Central Assistance for conducting surveys to the various State H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Governments during the periods from 2001-2001 to 2009-2010.
The Affidavit revealed that, in majority of the States, no surveys
have been conducted after the year 2002-2003, namely,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar, Jharkhand,
Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttrakhand. It was stated that
B only a handful of States have conducted surveys in subsequent
years, and that in many instances, the Survey Reports were still
awaited.
12. This Court then passed an order dated 25.4.2011
directing the States of Haryana and Andhra Pradesh to explain
C what steps they have taken to implement the provisions of 1976
Act. Noticing that those States were not taking effective steps,
this Court passed another order dated 26.8.2011 directing
them to submit their Accounts to the Ministry of Labour,
Government of India with regard to disbursement of amounts
D by Central Government for survey and rehabilitation of bonded
labour. The responses from those States are far from
satisfactory.
13. The NHRC submitted its revised report dated
E 3.9.2011 before this Court. We notice that the response from
the States to the said report is also not satisfactory. The revised
report of the NHRC reiterated that the analysis of the half yearly
report sent by the States/UTs reveals the following aspects:
"(i) The reports appear to have been prepared in a very
F casual and stereotype manner.
(ii) They contain mostly nil information as far as conducting
fresh surveys for identification of bonded labourers is
concerned.
G
(iii) In some States like UP nearly 700 released bonded
labourers have been awaiting rehabilitation for years due
to no provision of funds in the budget needed for
rehabilitation.
H
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 595
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(iv) The outcome of legal and penal action against the A
offending employers or bonded labour keepers is nil.
(v) Not a single case has been reported so far which goes
to show that an offending employer had been convicted by
way of imprisonment.
B
(vi) It is almost confirmed beyond doubt that (a) efforts at
identification of bonded labourers through fresh surveys
are lackadaisical and the outcome of such surveys is nil
(b) there is inordinate delay in securing rehabilitation of
released labourers and (c) the penalties awarded are not C
proportional to the judicial severity of the crime."
14. The NHRC further stated that while examining about
400 cases, only in one case, the Commission found that the
ground level situation confirmed to fulfillment of all requirements 0
under the Minimum Wages Act, that the employer paid wages
according to the law and has not detained anyone. Report
states that workmen are usually recruited to brick kilns by
middlemen on payment of an advance or other allurements, but
at the close of the brick kilns operations, the advances paid at E
the time of recruitment are adjusted with wages due to the
workmen in an arbitrary manner, to the disadvantage of the
worker. It is unnecessary to dilate the matter further. Suffice it
to say that on 30.6.2011, in all 2780 cases involving about 1
lakh bonded labourers have been registered in the
Commission and presently 841 cases are under consideration F
of the Commission. The NHRC also specifically brought to the
knowledge of this Court, two specific complaints, which are
pending for compliance before the Government of Andhra
Pradesh and with the Governments of West Bengal, Jharkhand,
Bihar and NCT of Delhi. The NHRC has sought proper G
directions from this Court so that the concerned States would
take steps for reporting compliance to NHRC at the earliest. It
is useful to refer to the situations in the States of Andhra
Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and NCT of Delhi,
which are as follows: H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A "RE: ANDHRA PRADESH
22. The first complaint is with respect to the State of
Andhra Pradesh and pertains to the plight of
labourers working in stone quarries on National
Highway No. 9 at a distance of about 22 kms from
B
Vijaywada. The issue was brought to light in 2005.
However, despite repeated efforts when no results
were forthcoming, the NHRC constituted a team to
interact with the labourers and submit a detailed
report. The team accordingly submitted its report
c "confirming the allegation that as many as 5000
quarry workers at the time of tbe visit [i.e.30.06.09
to 5.07.09] were living and working under
conditions of debt bondage." Pursuant to the report
"even though the Chief Secretary appeared in
D person before the Commission on 5.10.09 and
gave an assurance about the implementation of
labour laws and provision of basic facilities, till date
that action on the part of the State Government and
the District Administration, Krishna remains
E incomplete and the State Government is seeking
time again and again.
RE: WEST BENGAL, JHARKHAND, BIHAR AND NCT
OF DELHI
F 23. The second complaint of then NHRC pertains to the
plight of bonded children from West Bangal,
Jharkhand and Bihar working under bonded
conditions in certain Zari Factories of
Kotlamubarakpur Police Station area of Delhi had
G been released and resci.Jred through raids "no
steps have been taken by the administration of NCT
of Delhi for issue of release certificates to the
victims and for their rehabilitation. Instead of
handing over the release certificates to the victims,
H these were sent to the Resident Commissioners of
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 597
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the three originating States namely West Bengal, A
Jharkhand and Bihar." The NHRC has further
pointed out that "in the process more than 2 years
lapsed and the children who were supposed to
have been rehabilitated by now could not be
rehabilitated due to acts of negligence both of the B
part of Government of NCT of Delhi [as] also [the]
Government[s] of Bihar, West Bengal and
Jharkhand." Even though the complaint dates back
to 2005 and proceedings were initiated by the
NHRC in 2006, "till date there is no confirmation c
from the" States concerned "as to whether all the
129 working children who were rescued and
released from work in the Zari making units of NCT
of Delhi have been fully rehabilitated."
15. Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel who assisted D
the Court as Amicus Curiae, submitted that in the light of the
NHRC report dated 10.8.2009 and the affidavits filed by the
States/UTs and the Union of India and subsequent revised
report of NHRC dated 3.9.2011, it is imperative that certain
directions are to be issued to the various States/UTs for proper E
implementation of the provisions of the 1976 Act.
16. After hearing the amicus curiae and other learned
counsel appearing in these proceedings and also taking note
of the previous orders passed by this Court, we are inclined to F
give the following directions, apart from the directions already
issued:
(1) Fresh surveys be conducted periodically once in
three years in all the States/UTs in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and the revised report, the G
findings of the survey should be made a part of a
computerized data base available on the websites
of all concerned.
(2) The responsibility of conducting the surveys is on H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R.
A the District Level Vigilance Committees and Sub
Divisional Vigilance Committees of the States/UTs
and such committees should submit their reports to
the NHRC. This should be done in every three years
and Committees also should be reconstituted in
B every three years.
(3) Bonded labour, it may be noticed, is rampant in
brick kilns, stone quarries, crushing mines, beedi
manufacturing, carpet weaving, construction
industries, agriculture, in rural and urban
c unorganized and informal sector, power looms and
cotton handlooms, fish processing etc. The
Vigilance Committees are directed to give more
attention to these areas and take prompt action in
case violation is noticed.
D
(4) Large numbers of children are working as
domestic help in the urban, town and rural areas
with no chance to go to schools even though the
education from standard I to VIII is compulsory under
E the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009. Local Panchayats and local
bodies should identify such children and ensure that
they get proper education. We are not unmindful of
the fact that in some households they treat the
F domestic help just like their children and give food,
clothing and education but they are exception.
(5) Many of the States/UTs reporting NIL status with
respect to existence of Bonded labourers. This
might be due to the faulty methodology adopted by
G them for conducting such surveys. Guidelines on the
methodology of identification of bonded labourers
formulated by Shri SR Shankaran, Chairman of the
Expert Group constituted by the NHRC be followed
and implemented by all the States/UTs with suitable
H modifications to suit local conditions.
PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 599
TAMIL NADU & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
(6) All the States/UTs should calculate firm A
requirements of fund for rehabilitation of freed
bonded labourers and steps be taken to enhance
the rehabilitation package from the present limit of
Rs.20,000.
B
(7) The District Magistrates are directed to effectively
implement Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act and
we expect them to discharge their functions with
due diligence, with empathy and sensitivity, taking
note of the fact that the Act is a welfare legislation. C
(8) The District Magistrate and the State Government
I UTs would see that the Minimum Wages Act, the
Workmen Compensation Act, the Inter- State
Migrant Workmen Act, Child Labour (Prohibition
and Regulation) Act are also properly and effectively D
implemented.
(9) Directions are issued to all Gram Panchayats, local
bodies to report, in case they come across any
case of bonded labour, to the District Magistrate E
who will take appropriate follow up action under the
Act.
(10) The States of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal,
Jharkhand, Bihar and the NCT of Delhi are directed
to ensure compliance with orders passed by the F
NHRC as highlighted in its revised report."
(11) The States and the Union Territories should continue
to submit 6 monthly reports to NHRC.
(12) All the States I UTs to constitute Vigilance G
Committee, if not already constituted within six
months."
17. This Court has already given various directions in its
order dated 5.5.2004 passed in Public Union for Civil H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2004) 12 SCC
381, authorizing the NHRC to monitor the implementation of the
provisions of the 1976 Act which we re-iterate and direct
NHRC to effectively monitor and implement the provisions of
the Act. The orders passed by this Court, time to time, in writ
B petitions are to be duly complied with the NHRC, Union of India,
States and UTs.
18. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of so as to
enable the NHRC to take appropriate steps and effectively
c supervise for carrying out the directions issued by this Court
and the provision of BLS (A) Act. If the States/UTs are not
implementing the directions given by this Court, NHRC is free
to move this Court for further orders. We record our deep
appreciation to the efforts made by learned senior counsel -
Shri A.K. Ganguli and for sparing his valuable time for a public
0
cause. This Court is deeply indebted to him which we place
on record.
R.P. Writ Petition disposed of.
...
b
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "bonded labour"Sign in to search