(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
According to article 23(1), there are three evil practices:
(a) begar,
(b) traffic in human beings, and
(c) forced labour.
A significant features of article 23 is that it protects the individual not only against the State but also against private citizens. Most of the fundamental rights operates as limitation on the power of the State and impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach on individual liberty and the rights are only enforceable against the State.
Begar means involuntary work without payment. It is a fundamental right of a person, citizen or non-citizen, not to be compelled to work without wages, the only exception being commonly imposed public service.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0038/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 1473: 1982 UJ (SC) 553: (1982) 2 SCC 494: (1982) 2 SCWR 202. Popularly known as Asiad Workers case, where non-payment of minimum wages to construction workers was successfully challenged, among others, for violation of article 23, the Supreme Court held that the prohibition against traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour is a general prohibition, total in its effect and all pervasive in its range.
It is commonly known as slavery and implies the buying and selling of human beings as if they are chattels and such a practice is constitutionally abolished. Traffic in human being means to deal in men and women like goods, such as to sell or let or otherwise dispose them off. It would include traffic in women and children for immoral or other purposes. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1953 is a law made by Parliament under article 35 of the Constitution for the purpose of punishing acts which results in traffic in human beings.
Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0789/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 3021: 1997 AIR SCW 3055: 1997 (3) Crimes 40: JT 1997 (6) SC 305: (1997) 8 SCC 114: 1997 (2) SCJ 334: (1997) 4 SCALE 657: 1998 SCC (Cri) 25: 1997 (6) Supreme 394.
The word 'forced labour' in article 23(1) are to be interpreted ejusdem generis. The kind of 'forced labour' contemplated by the article has to be something in the nature of either traffic in human being or begar. It may be physical force compelling a person to provide labour or service to another, or it may be force exerted through a legal provision, such as a provision for imprisonment or fine for failure to provide forced labour or service. It may even be compulsion arising from hunger and poverty, want and destitution.
Deena alias Deen Dayal v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0094/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 1155: 1983 Cr LJ 1602. It was held that labour taken from prisoners without paying proper remuneration was forced labour and violative of article 23 of the Constitution. The prisoners are entitled to payment of reasonable wages for the work taken from them and Court is under duty to enforce their claim.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1983 : AIR 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161. The Supreme Court held that when an action is initiated in the Court through public interest litigation alleging the existence of bonded labour the government should welcome it as it may give the Government an opportunity to examine whether bonded labour system exists and as well as to take appropriate steps to eradicate that system.
Clause (2) of article 23 makes an exception in favour of the State and enables it to impose compulsory service for public purposes provided that in imposing such service the State does not make any discrimination on ground only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.
No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.
A critical human and economic problem is that of child labour. Poor parents seek to augment their meager income through employment of their children. Employers of children also stand to gain financially. Article 24 puts only a partial restriction on employment of child labour.
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0038/1982 : AIR 1982 SC 1473: 1982 UJ (SC) 553: (1982) 2 SCC 494: (1982) 2 SCWR 202. The Supreme Court held that article 24 embodies a Fundamental Right which is plainly and indubitably enforceable against everyone. By reason of the compulsive mandate in article 24, no one can employ a child below the age of 14 years in a hazardous employment like construction work.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0169/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 699: 1997 AIR SCW 407: (1996) 6 SCC 756: 1997 (1) Supreme 207: 1997 (1) UJ (SC) 243. The Supreme Court has held that children below the age of 14 years cannot be employed in any hazardous industry, mines or other works and has laid down exhaustive guidelines how the State authorities should protect economic, social and humanitarian rights of millions of children, working illegally in public and private sectors.
© Universal law Publishing Co.