Author: Pooja Singh, Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central Un
ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution enshrines Liberty, equality, and dignity as non-negotiable rights, yet for decades millions of the bonded labourers lived in condition described by the supreme court as “slavery in its worst form the landmark judgement of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) became a watershed Movement in the trajectory of public interest litigation (PIL) and judicial activism in India. The Court, led by the justice P.N.Bhagwati, expanded the horizons of article 21 by integrating the right to live and with dignity,free from exploitation, and the state to recognize its constitutional duty under Article 23 and 24.This article examines the case in depth, situating it within the broader framework of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, the evolution of PIL , and the moral philosophy of rights. It further engages with subsequent case laws academic reflections, and the ongoing relevance of this judgement in addressing systemic poverty and bonded labour. As Roscoe Pound once observed,”The law must be stable, but it must not stand still “- a maxim epitomised by this decision, where the Judiciary’s proactive role transformed constitutional ideas into living realities for the marginalised.
INTRODUCTION
Justice Krishna Iyer once remarked “The constitution of India is a social document which aims to transform the status quo into a just order.”
The case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. The Union of India (1984) exemplifies this transformative spirit.
It addressed the brutal realities of bonded labour in India, a practice that persisted despite constitutional guarantees against exploitation.
Bonded labour is not merely an economic issue but a direct violation of human dignity. It thrives on poverty, illiteracy, and social hierarchies, reducing individuals to commodities. The petitioner, Badhua Mukti Morcha, a non-governmental organization led by Swami Agnivesh, invoked article 32 to draw the Supreme Court’s attention to the plight of quarry workers in Haryana. This case thus became a milestone, not just for Bonded labour Jurisprudence but also for the expansion of judicial activism through PIL.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
० Bonded labour in India Bonded labour refers to a form of slavery where people are forced to work to repay debts- often small amount that perpetuate across generations. Despite the enactment of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition),1976, the practice remained rampant.
० The Petition
Bandhua Mukti Morcha, an NGO led by Swami Agnivesh, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighting the plight of quarry workers in Faridabad, Haryana.The workers were subjected to inhuman working conditions, denied minimum wages, proper housing, medical facilities, and education for their children.
The question before the court was not only about the violation of statutory rights but also about whether the Supreme Court could intervene to protect fundamental rights of the voiceless.
० Issues Raised
1.Whether the quarry workers were bonded labourers under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976?
2.Whether the denial of minimum wages, health care, and education violated Articles 21,23 and 24 of the constitution?
3.Whether the Supreme Court could entertain a PIL filed by an organisation on behalf of victims unable to approach the court themselves?
० Judgement of the Supreme Court
Delivered by justice P.N. Bhagwati the Court held:
•Recognition of Bonded labour the workers were indeed bonded labourers under the 1976 Act.
The Court directed the Haryana government to take immediate steps for their release and rehabilitation.
• Expansion of article 21 The Court declared that the “right to live with human dignity” under Article 21 includes the right to health, shelter, education, and humane working conditions. Article 23 (Prohibition of Force Labour)
Non-payment of minimum wages was held to be a form of force labour, violating Article 23.
• Legitimacy of PILs
The court recognised that when a large number of poor and illiterate people are unable to approach the Court, any public spirited citizen or organisation can file a petition on their behalf. This laid the foundation of PIL jurisprudence in India.
Justice Bhagwati powerfully observed
The State has a constitutional obligation to ensure that the directives in Part 4 are not ignored but faithfully observed.
COMPARATIVE CASE LAW ANALYSIS
० People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) – the Court held that paying workers less than the minimum wage amounts to forced labour under Article 23.
० Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1984) Emphasized that the responsibility of the state does not end with the release of bonded labourers; their rehabilitation is equally important.
० Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983) – The court invalidated employment practices under famine relief programmes that paid less than minimum wages.
Together, these cases illustrate the Judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution as a living document aimed at social justice.
SCHOLARLY PERSPECTIVES
० Granville Austin described the Indian Consitution as a seamless web of three strands: national unity, democratic institutions, and social revolution.”
Bandhua Mukti Morcha embodies the strand of social revolution by dismantling entrenched forms of exploitation.
० Amartya Sen, in his work ‘Development as freedom’, argues that “Freedom is both the primary end and the principal means of development.”Judicial activism in this case ensured that freedom from bonded labour became a stepping stone for real development.
० Justice Bhagwati himself reflected : “The role of the judiciary is not merely to adjudicate disputes but to create conditions where justice can flourish for the weakest.”
CRITICISMS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
While the judgement has been celebrated, critics argue that excessive judicial intervention undermines the separation of powers.
H.M. Seervai, a noted constitutional scholar, warned that PIL could lead to judicial populism. However, in cases of bonded labour, where executive inertia was apparent, judicial activism was perhaps the only effective instrument.
CONTINUING RELEVANCE
Despite progressive judgements, bonded labour persists in hidden forms, particularly in agriculture, bricks kilns, and carpet weaving. According to the Global Slavery Index (2018), India still had millions trapped in modern forms of slavery.The Legacy of bandhua Mukti Morcha lies not only in judicial pronouncements but also in its role in awakening civil society. NGOs and activists continue to invoke this case as a moral and legal precedent.
CONCLUSION
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. The Union of India remains one of the most remarkable judgements in the Indian constitutional history. It exemplified how judicial activism, rooted in constitutional morality, can translate lofty promises into tangible rights for the oppressed.
As Justice Bhagwati declared, the Judiciary must be “The sentinel on the qui vive” for the Marginalized.The judgement did not merely free a few thousand labourers; it transformed the discourse on fundamental rights and human dignity in India.
Mahatma Gandhi once said: The true Measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
By this measure, the Judgement stands as a beacon of hope- a reminder that the chains of exploitation can indeed be broken in court.
FAQS
1. What is the significance of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)?
It marked a turning point in judicial activism and public interest litigation (PIL), reinforcing the right to live with dignity under Article 21.
2. Which constitutional provisions were central to this case?
Articles 21, 23, and 24—relating to the right to life with dignity, prohibition of forced labour, and protection of children from hazardous work.
3. Who filed the petition and on what grounds?
The NGO Bandhua Mukti Morcha, led by Swami Agnivesh, filed it under Article 32, highlighting inhuman conditions of quarry workers in Haryana.
4. How did the Court define bonded labour in this case?
The Court recognized bonded labour as a violation of human dignity, linking it to structural poverty and exploitation, despite legal abolition.
5. Why is the judgment still relevant today?
It established the judiciary’s role in protecting marginalized groups and emphasized that constitutional rights must extend to the powerless, not just the privileged.
