Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1983) — bonded labour, the letter petition and the presumption

It is the leading authority on the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 read with Article 23, and on the procedure of public interest litigation: the letter as petition, the commission of inquiry, and the State's duty to identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers. It also ties the right to live with dignity under Article 21 to the Directive Principles.

The petitioner, "an organisation dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers in the country, addressed a letter to Hon'ble Bhagwati, J." alleging that a large number of labourers from different parts of the country were working in stone quarries in Faridabad district, Haryana, under “inhuman and intolerable conditions”, that many of them were bonded labourers, and that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Minimum Wages Act and the other labour laws were not being observed. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 and appointed commissioners to visit the quarries and report. The State of Haryana objected that a letter could not be a petition, that the Court could not appoint a commission, and that the workers were not shown to be bonded. The Bench was Bhagwati, Pathak and Amarendra Nath Sen JJ., and the judgment was delivered on 16 December 1983.

1. Can the Court act on a letter, and appoint a commission, under Article 32?
2. Who bears the burden of proving that a labourer is, or is not, a bonded labourer?
3. What do Articles 21 and 23 require of the State for such workers?

Article 32 and the commission. Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure "is not exhaustive and does not detract from the inherent power of the Supreme Court to appoint a commission, if the appointment of such commission is found necessary for the purpose of securing enforcement of a fundamental right in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32." "Persons in this country obliged to serve as bonded labour are entitled to invoke Article 23 of the Constitution. The provisions embodied in that clause form a vital constituent of the Fundamental Rights set forth in Part III of the Constitution, and their violation attracts properly the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution."

The presumption. The Act is aimed at every form of forced labour, and bondage need not be proved by the labourer: "whenever it is shown that a labourer is made to provide forced labour, the Court would raise a presumption that he is required to do so in consideration of an advance or other economic consideration received by him and he is therefore a bonded labourer. This presumption may be rebutted by the employer and also by the State Government if it so chooses but unless and until satisfactory material is produced for rebutting this presumption, the Court must proceed on the basis that the labourer is a bonded labourer entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act."

Dignity and the Directive Principles. The right "to live with human dignity, free from exploitation", assured under Article 21 as read in Francis Coralie, "derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief."

The State's duty. The State Government cannot repudiate its obligation under the Act to identify, release and rehabilitate bonded labourers, and the Court issued directions for the identification and release of the quarry workers, the payment of minimum wages, and the provision of drinking water, medical care and schooling at the quarries.

A bonded labourer may reach the Supreme Court by a letter, and the Court may appoint a commission to find the facts. Once forced labour is shown, bondage is presumed and the employer or the State must rebut it. Article 23 is enforceable under Article 32, and Article 21, read with Articles 39(e) and (f), 41 and 42, obliges the State to secure the minimum conditions of a life with dignity to such workers and to rehabilitate those it releases.