M.C. MEHTA versus STATE OF.TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 10-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.C. MEHTA 
v. 
STATE OF.TAMIL NADU 
DECEMBER 10, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticles 24, 39(e), (f), 41, 45, 47 and 32. 
Public Interest Litigation-Child Labour-Abolition of-Children aged 
C . below 14 years must not be employed in any factory or mine or other 
hazardous work-They must be given education as desired by Article 45 and 
declared in Unni Kris/man's case-Employers must comply with provisions 
of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act-Offending employer 
would be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000 for every child employed 
D in contravention of those provisions--Govemment must either provide job to 
an adult member of the family in lieu of the child of that family who was 
employed in any factory or a mine or in other hazardous work or it must 
deposit Rs. 5, 000 for each child-If no such altemative employment provided, 
the parent/guardian of the child would be entitled to a monthly income from 
the corpus of Rs. 25,000 per child-Amount to be deposited in Child Labour 
E Rehabilitation-cum-We/fare Fund-However, employment given or payment 
made would cease to be operative if child was not sent by parent/guardian 
for education-Inspectors appointed under S. 17 of the Child Labour 
(Prohibition Regulation) Act must ensure compliance of provisions of the 
Act-Further directions also given-Ghild Labour (Prohibition and Regula-
F tion) Act, 1986, Ss. 3 & 14-Factories Act, 1948, S. 67-f'lantation Labour 
Act, 1951, S. 24-Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, S. 109-Mines Act, 1952, S. 
45-Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961, S. 21-Apprentices A.ct, 1961, S. 
3-Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, S. 
24-Shops and Commercial Establishments ActS-Convention 011 the Rights 
G of the Child (concluded by U.N. General Assembly on 20.11.1989), Art. 32. 
There were many factories in Sivakasi which employed child labonr 
in the mannfacturing process of matches and fireworks which was hazard-
ons giving rise to accidents including fatal case. The petitioner filed the 
present Public Interest Litigation as the fundamental right of the children 
H guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution was being grossly violated. 
726 
M.C.MEIITA v. STATE 
727 
Disposing of the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In our Country Sivakasi was once taken as the worst 
offender in the matter of violating prohibition of employing child labour. 
But child labour by now is an all-India evil, though its acuteness differs 
from area to area. So without a concerted effort, both of the Central 
Government and various State Governments, this ignominy would not get 
wiped ·out. Therefore, it is considered fit to travel beyond the confines of 
Sivakasi to which place this petition initially related. It would be more 
appropriate to deal with the issue in wider spectrum and broader perspec-
tive taking it as a national problem and not pertaining to any one region 
A 
B 
of the country. So the question ls as to how this Court can, and is required C 
to, tackle the problem of child labour. [732-A; 738-A-C] 
1.2. While Article 24 of the Constitution has been a fundamental 
right ever since its inception, Article 45 too has been raised to high 
pedestal by Unni Krishanan. Though other articles are part of directive 
principles, they are fundamental in the governance of our country and it D 
is the duty of all the organs of the State (a la Article 37) to apply these 
principles. Judiciary, being also one of the three principal organs of the 
State, has to keep the same in mind when called upon to decide matters 
of great public importance. Abolition of child labour is definitely a matter 
of great pnblic concern and significance. [739-D-E] 
E 
Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., [1993] 1 sec G4S, followed. 
2.1. Besides the Constitutional provisions this country has accepted 
the Convention on the Rights of the Child which was concluded by the UN 
General Assembly on 20.11.1989 and the statntory provisions. But child F 
labour has continued despite the aforesaid statutory enactments. Poverty 
is basic reason which compels parents of a child, despite their unwilling-
ness, to get it employed. It may be that the problem would be taken care 
of to some extent by insisting on compulsory education. Even if it were to 
be so, child of a poor parent would not receive education, if per force it G 
has to earn to make the family meet both the ends. Therefore, till an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.