LexPUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 579 PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3922 of 1985) OCTOBER 15, 2012 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) BONDED LABOUR SYSTEM (ABOLITION) ACT, 1976: A B ss. 10, 11 and 12 - Bonded labour - Abolition of - c Rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers - Directions issued to States/Union Territories to conduct periodical surveys in accordance with provisions of the Act, to calculate firm requirement of funds for rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers and to take steps to enhance the rehabilitation 0 package - States and UTs should continue. to submit six monthly reports to NHRC and the latter would effectively supervise and take appropriate steps for carrying out the provisions of the Act and directions issued by the Court - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Workmen's Compensation Act, E 1923 - Inter State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 - Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 - Public interest litigation. The instant writ petition was filed as public interest F litigation in order to seek checking the practice of bonded labour and to rehabilitate the victims of such practice. The Court gave various directions including the setting up of Vigilance Committees, for the purpose of identifying and freeing the bonded labourers and to draw up a scheme G or programme for a better and more meaningful rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers and to ensure implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The Court, while dealing with the 579 H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A instant case, by an interim order dated 13.5.19941, gave various directions.By order dated 11.05.1997, the National Human Rights Commission was entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring and over-seeing the implementation of the directions issued by the Court as B well as provisions of the 1976 Act in all the States and Union Territories. The Expert Group constituted by the NHRC submitted its Action Taken Report on 6.6.2001 and the Court by order dated 5.5.2004 gave further directions. The NHRC in its report stated that even though the c guidelines on the methodology of identification of bonded labourers formulated by the Chairman of the Expert Group constituted in the year 2001-02 had been circulated to all the States/UTs but there was no evidence of their being adopted and implemented. The Court by its 0 order dated 9.7.2010, directed all the States/UTs to file their response to the NHRC's report, and by orders dated 16.12.2010, 25.4.2011, 26.8.2011 gave further directions. The NHRC submitted its revised report dated 3.9.2011. It is noticed that the response from the States concerned E to the said report was not satisfactory. Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is unnecessary to dilate the matter further. Suffice it to say that on 30.6.2011, in all 2780 F cases involving about 1 lakh bonded labourers have been registered in the Commission and as on date, 841 cases are under consideration of the Commission. The NHRC also brought to the knowledge of this Court, specific complaints, which are pending for compliance before the G Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Governments of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar and NCT of Delhi. The NHRC has sought proper directions from this Court so that the States concerned would take steps for reporting compliance to NHRC at the earliest. [para 14] [595-F-G] H 4. Public Union For Civil Liberties vs. State of T.N. 1994 (5) SCC 116. PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. STATE OF 581 TAMIL NADU & ORS. 1.2 Taking note of the previous orders passed by this A Court apart from the directions already issued, the Court gives the following directions: (1) Fresh surveys be conducted periodically once in three years in all the States/UTs in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the revised report, the findings of the survey should be made a part of a computerized data base available on the websites of all concerned. B c (2) The responsibility of conducting the surveys (3) (4) is on the District Level Vigilance Committees and Sub Divisional Vigilance Committees of the States/UTs and such Committees should submit their reports to the NHRC. This should D be done in every three years and Committees also should be reconstituted in every three y
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.