The Evolution of Legislation Against Bonded Labour in India

India’s struggle against bonded labour did not begin in 1976. It stretches back through centuries of feudal exploitation, through colonial rule, through the framers of the Constitution, and finally to a Parliament that decided that a constitutional promise alone was not enough – that a dedicated law was needed. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 is the culmination of that long legislative journey. To understand why this Act matters and what it took to get here, you have to trace the story from its roots.

The roots of bonded labour in India 🔗

Bonded labour – also called debt bondage – is a system where a person takes an advance or loan from a creditor and is then compelled to work off that debt, often for nominal or no wages, sometimes for generations. The system is deeply tied to India’s feudal social structure, the dominance of land-owning classes, and caste-based hierarchies that placed entire communities at the economic mercy of others. Under this arrangement, the debt rarely, if ever, got repaid – it was designed not to. The debtor’s children, and even grandchildren, inherited the obligation. This is what made bonded labour not just exploitative, but a form of inherited servitude.

The practice was particularly rampant in agricultural settings. Landless labourers belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes – already excluded from land ownership and formal credit – were the most vulnerable. They had no alternative but to borrow from landlords and moneylenders, effectively entering a debt trap with no exit. The British colonial government further entrenched these practices by creating coercive debt structures that served as cheap labour pools for colonial infrastructure projects, and some bonded labourers were even shipped to other colonies as indentured workers.

Colonial-era legal landscape 🔗

The British administration did enact certain laws touching on forced labour and slavery, but these were limited and largely served colonial interests. The Indian Slavery Act of 1843 formally abolished slavery under British India, but abolition on paper and abolition in practice were two very different things. The debt bondage system persisted because it operated through informal credit arrangements – not outright ownership of persons – and therefore fell through the cracks of anti-slavery law.

Local customary systems continued under different regional names. In Bihar, it was called the kamiya system; in Rajasthan, sagri; in Odisha, gothi. These customary systems persisted well beyond formal colonial abolition and, in many cases, have survived even to the present day. The British legal framework, preoccupied with maintaining agrarian productivity and social order, never meaningfully dismantled the structural conditions that sustained bondage.

International conventions and India’s obligations 🔗

At the international level, the movement against forced labour gained significant momentum in the early twentieth century. The ILO’s Forced Labour Convention No. 29, adopted in 1930, called on member states to suppress all forms of forced labour within the shortest possible period. This was followed by the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention No. 105 of 1957, which went further in mandating the immediate and complete abolition of forced labour. India has ratified both these core ILO Conventions – No. 29 and No. 105 – creating binding international obligations to legislate effectively against forced and bonded labour.

The international framework also drew from the 1926 Slavery Convention and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, which specifically called for the complete abolition of debt bondage and serfdom. These instruments signalled a global consensus: that debt bondage, however it was dressed up in local custom or informal agreement, was a form of slavery and had no place in the modern world. India was part of this global conversation, and that participation eventually shaped its domestic legislative choices.

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution – the foundational guarantee 🔗

When India became independent and the Constitution came into force in 1950, the framers made an unambiguous choice. Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits “traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour,” declaring any contravention a punishable offence. Begar refers to the practice of compelling persons to render unpaid labour – a practice historically associated with landlords and local authorities demanding work from lower-caste communities without any compensation.

Article 23 is part of the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution, which means it is enforceable in court. Any citizen can directly approach a High Court or the Supreme Court if this right is violated. The Article also has a horizontal application – it is enforceable not just against the State, but against private individuals as well. This was significant because most bonded labour arrangements were between private landlords and their workers, not between the government and citizens.

The broader constitutional framework 🔗

Article 23 did not stand alone. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass the right to live with dignity – a right directly violated by bonded labour. Additionally, the Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 39 and 43 placed an obligation on the State to ensure that workers were not compelled by economic necessity into unsuitable working conditions and that they received a decent standard of living. Together, these provisions created a strong constitutional mandate for anti-bondage legislation.

The gap between the Constitution and action 🔗

Despite Article 23 coming into force in 1950, Parliament did not enact a comprehensive law specifically targeting bonded labour for nearly three decades. This gap was not due to indifference alone – it reflected the political complexity of legislating against a system deeply embedded in agrarian relations and backed by powerful landowning interests. Some individual states passed laws – for example, laws against particular regional practices of bondage – but these were inconsistent, narrow in scope, and poorly enforced.

During this period, civil society organisations and activists began documenting the scale of bonded labour across India. Reports from Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and other states revealed that hundreds of thousands of labourers – disproportionately from Dalit and Adivasi communities – were living in conditions of effective slavery. ILO sources also noted that India’s bonded labour problem was not merely an agrarian relic but was expanding into brick kilns, stone quarries, mining, and domestic work. The existing legal framework – a patchwork of general labour laws, criminal provisions, and a constitutional Article – was insufficient to address the systemic nature of the problem.

The 20-point programme and the political turning point 🔗

The decisive political moment came on January 7, 1975. As part of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s 20-point economic programme for national reconstruction, the government made a formal declaration: “Bonded Labour System stands abolished and shall be declared illegal wherever it exists.” This was not just a policy statement – it was a public commitment that elevated the abolition of bonded labour to the level of a national priority, alongside land reforms, minimum wages for agricultural workers, and rural debt relief.

This declaration set in motion the legislative process. The government moved quickly. On October 24, 1975, the President of India promulgated the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance, 1975, which came into force the following day – October 25, 1975. An Ordinance is a temporary law that can be issued when Parliament is not in session, and it carries the same legal force as legislation. This Ordinance was an immediate, executive-level response to the constitutional mandate of Article 23 and the international obligations India had undertaken.

Enactment of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 🔗

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Bill was introduced in Parliament and passed by both Houses on February 9, 1976, receiving Presidential assent shortly thereafter. The Act was given retrospective effect from October 25, 1975 – the date the Ordinance had come into force – ensuring legal continuity. It was enacted as Act No. 19 of 1976.

The Act was comprehensive in its sweep. It did not merely prohibit future bondage – it freed all bonded labourers unilaterally from their existing obligations and extinguished all bonded debts with immediate effect. Property attached to bonded debt was to be restored. No suit or proceeding for recovering a bonded debt could continue in any court. The Act also criminalised the practice – compelling any person to render bonded labour was made a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine.

Key provisions that gave the Act its teeth 🔗

Several features distinguished the 1976 Act from any prior legislative measure. First, it created a presumption in favour of the worker – the burden of proving that a debt was not a bonded debt fell on the creditor, not on the labourer. Second, it established District Magistrates as the primary implementing authority, empowered to conduct inquiries, release bonded labourers, and initiate prosecutions. Third, it mandated the constitution of District and Sub-Divisional Vigilance Committees – composed of social workers and representatives of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities – to monitor implementation, provide rehabilitation support, and defend freed labourers against any suits filed for recovery of bonded debts.

The Central Government launched a rehabilitation scheme in May 1978, subsequently updated in 2016 and 2021, providing financial assistance to freed labourers. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has been actively monitoring the implementation of the Act since 1997, and landmark Supreme Court decisions – including Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Neerja Chaudhury v. State of Madhya Pradesh – have expanded the Act’s interpretation, holding that payment below minimum wage itself constitutes a form of forced labour under Article 23.

Why a dedicated act was necessary 🔗

One question is worth addressing directly: if Article 23 already prohibited forced labour in 1950, why did it take until 1976 to pass a specific law? The answer lies in the nature of constitutional rights versus legislative enforcement. Article 23 created a right – but without a statute defining what bonded labour is, who counts as a bonded labourer, what constitutes a bonded debt, who has the power to act, and what penalties apply, the right remained difficult to enforce in practical terms. Courts could not act on vague complaints. Police could not register cases without a defined offence. Labourers could not claim relief without a mechanism to provide it.

The 1976 Act served as the legislative fulfillment of Article 23’s constitutional mandate – it translated the broad prohibition into specific, actionable law with definitions, procedures, penalties, and rehabilitation measures. It also signalled to state governments that the centre was serious, and that inaction was itself a constitutional violation. As the Supreme Court stated in Neerja Chaudhury, failure to implement the Act amounts to a clear violation of both Article 21 and Article 23 of the Constitution.

What do you think? Given that Article 23 of the Constitution prohibited forced labour as far back as 1950, does the 26-year delay in enacting a dedicated statute reveal a gap between constitutional ideals and political will – and what does that tell us about how law actually changes social realities? And with customary systems of bondage like kamiya, sagri, and gothi still reportedly persisting in parts of India, how effective can legislative history alone be in dismantling practices that are rooted in social and economic structures rather than law?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1491?view_type=browse
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-23-of-the-indian-constitution/
3. https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2023/6/10227.pdf
4. https://www.outlookindia.com/national/bonded-labour-indias-unfinished-promise-of-freedom
5. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/forced-labour-convention-1930-no-29
6. https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/n2ilo105.htm
7. https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=168889
8. https://lawbhoomi.com/right-against-exploitation-under-articles-23-and-24/
9. https://www.labourfile.com/section-detail.php?aid=770
10. https://labour.gov.in/acts/bonded-labour-system-abolition-act9th-february-1976
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonded_Labor_System_(Abolition)_Act,_1976
12. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1996/India3.htm