The apex court recently directed the centre to convene a meeting with all states and Union territories to formulate a proposal to tackle the problem of bonded labour and financial assistance. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan termed it as “alarming” after figures placed before it showed that in Uttar Pradesh of the 5,264 bonded labourers released, only 1,101 had received immediate financial assistance. One of the key challenges highlighted by
the Court is the disbursal of immediate financial assistance to rescued children. In some cases, minors are taken from their home states and forced into bonded labour in adjoining states, making it difficult to provide timely assistance. “We find that in order to address the issue of inter-state trafficking of children, the issue needs to be addressed by the Union as well as all the states in a unified manner,” the bench said.
The Court was considering a petition requesting the enforcement of fundamental rights for individuals who had been trafficked and forced into bonded labour. It instructed the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, to convene a meeting with his counterparts in all states and Union territories to develop a proposal aimed at addressing this societal ill. The bench asked for a simplified procedure to facilitate the immediate financial assistance scheme for rescued child labourers. “Taking into consideration the importance of the matter, we find that it will be appropriate to have the assistance of the attorney general. We, therefore, request the attorney general to assist us in the matter,” it said. The Court further instructed the centre to include the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in the process of finalizing the procedure.
During the hearing, the legal representative of the petitioners raised the matter of immediate disbursement of financial aid to the rescued bonded labourers. The bench referred to the Uttar Pradesh’s statistics and indicated that over 4,100 released bonded labourers had not received financial assistance.
The counsel for Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that they had meticulously compiled district-specific data, including the number of freed bonded labourers and the financial assistance disbursed to them. The counsel assured the Court that this information would be presented for the record. In response to inquiries regarding the state’s measures to prevent bonded labour, the counsel indicated that he would also formally present the established procedures followed in Uttar Pradesh. The counsel for the petitioners asserted that this was an inter-state matter, citing instances where individuals from Bihar were transported to Uttar Pradesh for forced labour.
“Why doesn’t your union collaborate with all the state governments?” the bench asked the centre’s legal representative. It suggested that the secretary of the relevant ministry convene a meeting with his counterparts in all states and Union territories to develop a uniform policy applicable to all. The Court further noted that in the digital age, there should be a dedicated online platform similar to the one for missing children. A standardized procedure must be established, the Court remarked. The matter will be heard after six weeks.
During an August hearing, senior advocate HS Phoolka, had stated that less than 10 percent of such workers received financial assistance or compensation. In July 2022, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the petition and sought responses from the central government, the NHRC as well as several states and Union territories regarding the plea.
One of the petitioners asserted that he and other bonded labourers were rescued and released on February 28, 2019 from a brick kiln in Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, after being trafficked by an unregistered contractor from their native district of Gaya in Bihar. The petitioner stated that he and his fellow workers were compelled to work without receiving the minimum statutory wages and their fundamental rights to movement and employment were severely curtailed.
The apex court’s directive is a crucial step towards addressing the issue of bonded labour, which affects millions of people, worldwide, including 27.6 million men, women and children who are victims of forced labour. To tackle this issue, the centre will need to work with states and Union territories to create a comprehensive plan. This may involve setting up a Bonded Labour Rehabilitation Fund, as suggested by the International Labour Organization, to provide immediate help to rescued bonded labourers.
Bonded labour is a practice characterized by a long-term creditor-debtor relationship, typically between an employer and an employee. This practice has existed for a considerable amount of time and attempts to eradicate it have been ongoing, yet it persists. Bonded labour involves a labourer seeking an advance on a loan and agreeing in exchange to provide services at nominal wages or no wages at all until the advance is repaid. The challenge lies in the fact that the loan is provided at high interest rates and the services required by the creditor span an extended period, sometimes extending across generations. This practice not only places a significant burden on the individual and their family, but also deprives them of their right to a dignified life and personal freedom.
India, a developing nation with a population exceeding 1.36 billion, faces challenges related to economic disparities and reliance on manual labour. While entering into bonded labour may not always involve direct coercion, the practice inherently restricts the freedom of workers. It constitutes a form of slavery and falls under the definition of “forced labour” as per Article 23 of the Constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance was enacted in 1975, followed by the introduction of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Bill in 1976 to replace the ordinance.
In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court directed the NHRC to oversee the implementation of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act and asked the government’s input and suggestions. States and Union territories were required to submit status reports every six months in a format prescribed by the NHRC. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing vigilance committees as per the Act and pointed towards the responsibility of states and Union territories to develop a plan for the rehabilitation of released bonded labourers, potentially involving the assistance of NGOs.
In Balram vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court provided specific directives to the central government and its officials to ensure the effective implementation of the Act’s provisions. The central government was instructed to allocate sufficient funds for the Act’s purposes and designated officials were tasked with ensuring that the stipulated amount reaches the bonded labourers. To facilitate this, individual bank accounts were to be opened in the names of the bonded labourers.
In the case of Neerja Chaudhary vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of rehabilitating workers even in the absence of an explicit provision for the same. The Court ruled that under Articles 21 and 23, bonded labourers must be identified, rescued and rehabilitated. The Court expressed its apprehension that without proper rehabilitation, these labourers might succumb to poverty once again and resort to the bonded labour system as a last resort.
As per the press release issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, a centrally-sponsored scheme for the rehabilitation of bonded labour has been in operation since May 1978. This scheme is to assist the states in the task of rehabilitating identified and released labourers. According to the press release, the plan has been revised from May 17, 2016. The scheme includes providing financial assistance to the labourers directly, giving financial assistance to the states for conducting surveys and “evaluatory studies” and provision for maintaining a corpus of at least Rs 10 lakh for the immediate assistance of any bonded labourer. As per data from the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment in December 2018, out of the 3,13,000 bonded labourers rehabilitated in the country, 1,404 were from Maharashtra. The top three states on the list were Karnataka (66,281), Tamil Nadu (65,573), and Uttar Pradesh (42,279).
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau
The post appeared first on .
the Court is the disbursal of immediate financial assistance to rescued children. In some cases, minors are taken from their home states and forced into bonded labour in adjoining states, making it difficult to provide timely assistance. “We find that in order to address the issue of inter-state trafficking of children, the issue needs to be addressed by the Union as well as all the states in a unified manner,” the bench said.
The Court was considering a petition requesting the enforcement of fundamental rights for individuals who had been trafficked and forced into bonded labour. It instructed the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, to convene a meeting with his counterparts in all states and Union territories to develop a proposal aimed at addressing this societal ill. The bench asked for a simplified procedure to facilitate the immediate financial assistance scheme for rescued child labourers. “Taking into consideration the importance of the matter, we find that it will be appropriate to have the assistance of the attorney general. We, therefore, request the attorney general to assist us in the matter,” it said. The Court further instructed the centre to include the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in the process of finalizing the procedure.
During the hearing, the legal representative of the petitioners raised the matter of immediate disbursement of financial aid to the rescued bonded labourers. The bench referred to the Uttar Pradesh’s statistics and indicated that over 4,100 released bonded labourers had not received financial assistance.
The counsel for Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that they had meticulously compiled district-specific data, including the number of freed bonded labourers and the financial assistance disbursed to them. The counsel assured the Court that this information would be presented for the record. In response to inquiries regarding the state’s measures to prevent bonded labour, the counsel indicated that he would also formally present the established procedures followed in Uttar Pradesh. The counsel for the petitioners asserted that this was an inter-state matter, citing instances where individuals from Bihar were transported to Uttar Pradesh for forced labour.
“Why doesn’t your union collaborate with all the state governments?” the bench asked the centre’s legal representative. It suggested that the secretary of the relevant ministry convene a meeting with his counterparts in all states and Union territories to develop a uniform policy applicable to all. The Court further noted that in the digital age, there should be a dedicated online platform similar to the one for missing children. A standardized procedure must be established, the Court remarked. The matter will be heard after six weeks.
During an August hearing, senior advocate HS Phoolka, had stated that less than 10 percent of such workers received financial assistance or compensation. In July 2022, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the petition and sought responses from the central government, the NHRC as well as several states and Union territories regarding the plea.
One of the petitioners asserted that he and other bonded labourers were rescued and released on February 28, 2019 from a brick kiln in Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, after being trafficked by an unregistered contractor from their native district of Gaya in Bihar. The petitioner stated that he and his fellow workers were compelled to work without receiving the minimum statutory wages and their fundamental rights to movement and employment were severely curtailed.
The apex court’s directive is a crucial step towards addressing the issue of bonded labour, which affects millions of people, worldwide, including 27.6 million men, women and children who are victims of forced labour. To tackle this issue, the centre will need to work with states and Union territories to create a comprehensive plan. This may involve setting up a Bonded Labour Rehabilitation Fund, as suggested by the International Labour Organization, to provide immediate help to rescued bonded labourers.
Bonded labour is a practice characterized by a long-term creditor-debtor relationship, typically between an employer and an employee. This practice has existed for a considerable amount of time and attempts to eradicate it have been ongoing, yet it persists. Bonded labour involves a labourer seeking an advance on a loan and agreeing in exchange to provide services at nominal wages or no wages at all until the advance is repaid. The challenge lies in the fact that the loan is provided at high interest rates and the services required by the creditor span an extended period, sometimes extending across generations. This practice not only places a significant burden on the individual and their family, but also deprives them of their right to a dignified life and personal freedom.
India, a developing nation with a population exceeding 1.36 billion, faces challenges related to economic disparities and reliance on manual labour. While entering into bonded labour may not always involve direct coercion, the practice inherently restricts the freedom of workers. It constitutes a form of slavery and falls under the definition of “forced labour” as per Article 23 of the Constitution, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Ordinance was enacted in 1975, followed by the introduction of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Bill in 1976 to replace the ordinance.
In the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court directed the NHRC to oversee the implementation of the Bonded Labour Abolition Act and asked the government’s input and suggestions. States and Union territories were required to submit status reports every six months in a format prescribed by the NHRC. The Court emphasized the importance of establishing vigilance committees as per the Act and pointed towards the responsibility of states and Union territories to develop a plan for the rehabilitation of released bonded labourers, potentially involving the assistance of NGOs.
In Balram vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court provided specific directives to the central government and its officials to ensure the effective implementation of the Act’s provisions. The central government was instructed to allocate sufficient funds for the Act’s purposes and designated officials were tasked with ensuring that the stipulated amount reaches the bonded labourers. To facilitate this, individual bank accounts were to be opened in the names of the bonded labourers.
In the case of Neerja Chaudhary vs the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of rehabilitating workers even in the absence of an explicit provision for the same. The Court ruled that under Articles 21 and 23, bonded labourers must be identified, rescued and rehabilitated. The Court expressed its apprehension that without proper rehabilitation, these labourers might succumb to poverty once again and resort to the bonded labour system as a last resort.
As per the press release issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, a centrally-sponsored scheme for the rehabilitation of bonded labour has been in operation since May 1978. This scheme is to assist the states in the task of rehabilitating identified and released labourers. According to the press release, the plan has been revised from May 17, 2016. The scheme includes providing financial assistance to the labourers directly, giving financial assistance to the states for conducting surveys and “evaluatory studies” and provision for maintaining a corpus of at least Rs 10 lakh for the immediate assistance of any bonded labourer. As per data from the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment in December 2018, out of the 3,13,000 bonded labourers rehabilitated in the country, 1,404 were from Maharashtra. The top three states on the list were Karnataka (66,281), Tamil Nadu (65,573), and Uttar Pradesh (42,279).
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau
The post appeared first on .