BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 21-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
-
BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . 
FEBRUARY 21, 1997 
[K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 24, 32, 39(e) and (f) and 45-<:hild Labou~rohibition 
on-Carpet industry in State of U.P.-Engaging children below 14 years of C 
age-Bandhua Mukti Morcha filing writ petition under Public Interest Litiga-
tion seeking total prohibition on employment of children below 14 years and 
direction to respondents to give the children facilities like education, health 
sanitation, nutritious food etc.-Held, like th~ citizens, children are equally 
entitled to all the fundamental rights including right to education, health, D 
meaningful right to life-Compulsory education to these children is one of the 
principal means and primary duty of the State for stability of democracy, 
social integration and to eliminate social tension:-lt would be incumbent 
upon the State to provide facilities and opportunity as enjoined under Article 
39 ( e) and (f) and to prevent exploitation of their childhood due to indigence 
and vagrancy-Exploitation of their childhood due to poverty is detrimental E 
to democracy and social stability, unity and integrity of the nation----However, 
total banishment of employment may drive the children and mass them up 
into destitution and other mischievous environment making them vagrant, 
hard criminals and social risks, etc.-Therefore, while exploitation of child 
must be progressively banned, other simultaneous alternatives should be F 
evolved including providing education, health care, nutrient food, shelter and 
other means of livelihood with self respect and dignity of person-Immediate 
ban of child labour would be both unrealistic and counter productive-- It 
must begin from most hazardous and intolerable activities like slavery, 
bonded labour, trafficking, prostitution, pornography and dangerous f onns of 
labour and the like-Directions given in this regard in M.C. Mehta's case* are G 
feasible and inevitable-Their speedy implementation is needed-Government 
directed to convene a meeting of the Ministers concerned of respective State 
Governments to evolve the principles of policies for progressive elimination 
of employment of children below 14 years of age in all employments as 
mentioned in M.C. Mehta's case*-Directions given to evolve steps consistent H 
379 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R: 
A with M.C. Melita's case to provide compulsory education, periodical health 
check up, nutrient food, entrust responsibility for implementation of the 
principles, and to submit periodical reports to the Registry of this Court: 
Public Interest Litigation-Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Articles 26, 
28 and 31(1). 
B 
*M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1996] 6 SCC 756, 
reiterated. 
J.P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993] 1 SCC 642 and 
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education v. K.S. Gandhi, 
C 
(1991] 2 SC~ 716, relied on. 
D 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 12125 
of 1984 Etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
With 
Writ Petition (C) No. 11643 of 1985. 
U.S._ Prasad, E.M.S. Natchippan, Ms. K. Hingorani for the 
E Petitioners: 
F 
Rakesh Dwivedi, Addi. Adv. General, R.B. Misra and T.N. Singh for 
the State of U.P. 
' , 
~ 
R.P. Shrivasatava, L.K. Gupta and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. 
B.B. Singh for the State of Bihar. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed 
by way of public interest litigation seeking issue of a writ of mandamus 
G directing the Government to take steps to stop employment of children in 
Carpet Industry in the State of Uttar Pradesh; to appoint a Committee to 
investigate into their conditions of employment; and to issue such welfare 
directives as are appropriate for total prohibition on employment of 
children below 14 years and directing the respondents to give them 
H facilities like education, health, sanitation, nutritious food, etc. 
I•
J
-
-
BANDHUAMUKTI MORCHAv. U.O.I. 
381 
The main contention of the petitioner-group is that employment of A 
the children in any indust~y or in a hazardous industry, is violative of 
Article 24 of the Constitution and derogatory to the mandates contained 
in Articles 39( e) and 45 of the Constitution read with the Preamble. 
Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, this Court appointed Prem Bhai 
and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.