Protecting Against Exploitation: A Fundamental Right

India’s Constitution is often called a living document – one that doesn’t just declare rights but actively dismantles systems of oppression. Nowhere is this more evident than in Articles 23 and 24, which together form the Right Against Exploitation. These two provisions take direct aim at some of the oldest and most entrenched forms of human degradation: trafficking, forced labour, and child labour. Understanding them isn’t just an academic exercise – it’s about grasping how the Constitution tries to guarantee that every person, regardless of their economic circumstances or social position, retains their fundamental dignity.

The historical context: why these provisions were necessary 🔗

Before Independence, large parts of India operated under systems where the poor and marginalized had no real agency over their own labour. Landlords extracted work without wages through begar, moneylenders kept entire families in debt bondage, and women and children were the most vulnerable to outright trafficking. The devadasi system, under which women were dedicated to temples under the guise of religion but effectively subjected to exploitation, was widespread in parts of southern and eastern India. The Constitution’s framers were acutely aware of these realities and deliberately placed the right against exploitation in Part III as a justiciable fundamental right, not merely a directive principle.

Article 23: prohibition of trafficking and forced labour 🔗

Article 23(1) lays down a sweeping prohibition: traffic in human beings, begar, and other similar forms of forced labour are banned, and any violation is a punishable offence under law. The provision is notably broad. It protects both citizens and non-citizens, and crucially, it operates against private individuals as well as the State. This makes it distinctive – most fundamental rights primarily protect against state action, but Article 23 recognises that the most severe exploitation in India has historically come from private actors: landlords, moneylenders, contractors, and traffickers.

What counts as “forced labour”? 🔗

The phrase “forced labour” under Article 23 carries a meaning far wider than physical coercion. The Supreme Court in the landmark case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) held that labour extracted under economic compulsion – including payment below the minimum wage – qualifies as forced labour. The reasoning was straightforward: when a person works not out of free will but because poverty leaves them no other option, and when they are paid below the legally prescribed minimum, their labour is effectively compelled. This interpretation extended constitutional protection into the domain of ordinary wage disputes, linking the Minimum Wages Act directly to fundamental rights enforcement.

Begar – labour rendered without any remuneration – is the most obvious form of forced labour, but the Court made clear that Article 23 strikes at forced labour in any form it takes, even if rooted in a contract voluntarily signed. A person cannot be held to a contract that, in practice, amounts to exploitation under duress. Bonded labour – where a worker is trapped in perpetual servitude to repay a debt that never seems to diminish – is therefore squarely unconstitutional, regardless of whether a formal agreement was signed.

What does “traffic in human beings” cover? 🔗

The term goes beyond what is commonly understood as trafficking. Article 23 makes trafficking unconstitutional – the buying and selling of human beings for forced labour, sexual exploitation, slavery, or any other dehumanising purpose. Although the Constitution does not explicitly use the word “slavery,” the broad scope of “traffic in human beings” and “forced labour” together effectively abolishes it. Forcing landless persons into unpaid agricultural work or coercing women into prostitution both fall within the prohibition.

The only exception: compulsory public service 🔗

Article 23(2) creates one limited exception: the State can impose compulsory service for public purposes, such as military conscription or civic obligations. However, even this exception comes with a condition – the State cannot discriminate on grounds of religion, race, caste, or class in imposing such service. The exception is narrow and does not in any way dilute the core prohibition.

Key legislation giving effect to Article 23 🔗

Parliament has enacted several laws to operationalise the Article 23 guarantee. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 abolishes all forms of bonded labour and declares every existing bonded labour obligation void. It also creates a rehabilitation framework for freed labourers. The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (now the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act) targets trafficking for sexual exploitation. More recently, Section 370 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides a comprehensive definition of trafficking and stringent punishments for it. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, though primarily addressing Article 24, also intersects with Article 23 when children are held in debt bondage.

Article 24: no child below 14 in hazardous work 🔗

Article 24 is direct and unambiguous: no child below the age of 14 years shall be employed to work in any factory, mine, or engaged in any other hazardous employment. There are no exceptions to this rule. The provision is enforceable as an absolute prohibition, meaning even if a parent consents or the work appears voluntary, employing a child below 14 in a hazardous setting is unconstitutional.

The Article does not, however, prohibit all work by children under 14. Employment in non-hazardous work is technically not covered by Article 24’s absolute ban. This nuance has been a significant source of debate, particularly regarding children working in family settings or in light occupations. The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, amended in 2016, has since gone further than the constitutional minimum – it prohibits employment of children under 14 in any employment, including as domestic workers and in hotels and restaurants, closing many loopholes.

What counts as “hazardous”? 🔗

Factories, mines, and construction sites are the textbook examples. The PUDR v. Union of India case settled that construction work for the 1982 Asian Games qualified as hazardous, even though it did not fall neatly into any statutory list. The Supreme Court took an expansive view, holding that Article 24 is directly enforceable even without specific supporting legislation. Courts have consistently read “hazardous” broadly to ensure maximum child protection.

Supporting legislation for Article 24 🔗

Beyond the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides a framework for rehabilitation and care of rescued child labourers. The government has established a Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund, into which offending employers must deposit a penalty for each child illegally employed – this fund is then used for the education and welfare of the rescued child. National and State Commissions for the Protection of Child Rights, along with dedicated Children’s Courts for speedy trials, further strengthen the enforcement architecture.

The PUDR case: when the Constitution was brought to a construction site 🔗

No discussion of Articles 23 and 24 is complete without the People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 1473) case. In 1982, as India prepared to host the Asian Games, thousands of migrant workers were brought in for construction. An investigation by PUDR, a civil liberties organisation, revealed that workers were paid below the minimum wage (contractors deducted ₹1 per day from the already-meagre ₹9.25 daily wage), women workers were paid only ₹7 against the men’s ₹9.25, children below 14 were working on construction sites, and basic living conditions were wholly inadequate. PUDR sent a letter to Justice P.N. Bhagwati, which was treated as a PIL – one of the first major uses of public interest litigation in Indian legal history.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was transformative. It held that paying below the minimum wage is itself a form of forced labour under Article 23 – the economic compulsion of poverty removing the element of free will from a worker’s consent. It held the State liable even for violations by private contractors, since the government was the principal employer. It confirmed that Article 24 is directly enforceable even in the absence of specific legislation. And it established that any violation of beneficial labour laws by an employer amounts to a breach of fundamental rights, enforceable under Article 32. The judgment didn’t just protect workers in one construction project; it set a constitutional template for enforcing labour rights across India.

Articles 23 and 24 in the broader constitutional framework 🔗

These two Articles do not stand alone. They are reinforced by Articles 39(e) and 39(f) of the Directive Principles, which direct the State to frame policies ensuring that children and workers are not forced into occupations unsuited to their age or strength, and that children are given opportunities to develop in conditions of freedom and dignity. Together, the fundamental rights under Articles 23-24 and the directive principles under Article 39 create a complementary framework – one immediately enforceable, the other a guiding policy mandate on the State.

The right to life under Article 21 has also been interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity, which the Supreme Court in the PUDR case linked directly to freedom from forced labour. This means that a severe violation of Article 23 or 24 can simultaneously be a violation of the right to life – bringing the full force of constitutional remedies to bear.

Challenges that persist 🔗

Despite this robust constitutional and legislative architecture, exploitation continues. India has one of the highest numbers of child labourers globally, with poverty and migration driving children into domestic work, brick kilns, and informal factories. Bonded labour persists in agricultural belts and brick kilns, often disguised as voluntary arrangements. Prosecutors rarely invoke the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, and enforcement is uneven across states. The gap between constitutional aspiration and ground reality is wide, and bridging it requires not just legal awareness but political will, economic welfare schemes, and robust institutional oversight.

The constitutional prohibition is only the first step. Real protection demands that freed bonded labourers receive rehabilitation, that child rescue is followed by genuine educational access, and that the communities most vulnerable to trafficking are reached with awareness campaigns that go beyond urban areas. Articles 23 and 24 set the standard – the harder task is enforcement.

What do you think? Given that economic compulsion can make labour “forced” even when wages are nominally paid, where should the law draw the line between voluntary low-wage work and constitutionally prohibited exploitation? And if children under 14 can still legally work in non-hazardous settings, does the constitutional protection under Article 24 go far enough in a country where millions of children remain out of school?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1071750/
2. https://www.nextias.com/blog/right-against-exploitation/
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-23-of-the-indian-constitution/
4. https://thelegallock.com/test/people-union-for-democratic-rights-v-uoi/
5. https://www.ejusticeindia.com/pudr-v-union-of-india/
6. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-against-exploitation-articles-23-24/
7. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/bonded-labour-act/
8. https://www.india.gov.in/child-labour-prohibition-and-regulation-act-1986-0
9. https://blog.ipleaders.in/right-exploitation-articles-23-24-indian-constitution/
10. https://childlineindia.org/a/issues/child-labour-issue
11. https://lawbhoomi.com/case-analysis-on-peoples-union-for-democratic-rights-vs-union-of-india/
12. https://www.lawweb.in/2025/04/llm-notes-supreme-court-judgment.html
13. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/right-against-exploitation
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_India
15. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-6682-rights-against-exploitation-article-23-24-under-indian-constitution.html