STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 24-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
v. 
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT 
SEPTEMBER 24, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, C.J., K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 23 (/)-Forced labour and Begar-
Meaning of-Words and Phrases. 
A 
B 
) 
Cons:itution of India-Article 23 (1)-Forced labour and Begar- C 
Meaning of-Prisoners convicted for rigorous imprisonment-Labour without 
consent imposed on by authority of law-Effect of-Whether violative of 
Constitution of India-Article 23(2)-Public Purpose-Instance of-
Prisoners convicted for rigorous imprisonment-Forced to do labour for 
wages-Whether done for a public purpose-Held, (per Thomas, J.) D 
imprisonment is for reformative and rehabilitative purpose which is a public 
purpose. 
Constitution of India-Article 23-Labour by prisoners undergoing 
rigorous imprisonment-Payment for-Whether prisoners entitled to any 
wages-Wages-Quantum of-Deduction on account of expenditure on the E 
food and clothing of the prisoner-Whether permissible-Minimum Wages 
Act, I 948-Section 3. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 53-Kinds of punishments-
Difference between. 
Penology-Punishment-Object of-Theories-Reformative and 
rehabilitative theories of punishment-Desirability of 
F 
Victimology-Theories of-Restorative and Reparative theories-
Desirability of-Reparation-Meaning of-Held, victims of crime should not G 
be ignored-Rules/law must be framed for providing compensation to victims/ 
their family-Constitution of India-Article 300 A. 
The question of law which arose for determination in the present case 
was as to what. should be the wages paid to the prisoners who are required 
to do labour as a part of their punishment and whether any part of the wages H 
31 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A as payable to the prisoners but spent on their clothes and other amenities 
etc. can be deducted. 
B 
Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits any "traffic in 
human being and begar and other similar forms of forced labour". However, 
by virtue of Article 23(2), State is not prevented from "imposing compulsory 
service for public purposes". Originally, the draft of the constitution as 
adopted by the Advisory Committee banned "forced labour in any form 
including begar and in voluntary servitude except as punishment for crime 
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted" However, no such exception 
has been made for convicted persons in Article 23 in the Constitution of 
C India as adopted by the Constituent Assembly. 
A Division Bench of the Kera la High Court while dealing with prison 
reforms held that the wages paid to the prisoners must be at par with the 
wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It turned down the request 
of the Government to allow it to deduct the cost of clothes and food provided 
D to the prisoner from the wages payable to him. The Division Bench d_irecl.ed 
the State Government to design a just and reasonable wage structure for the 
inmates of prisons and as interim measure pay Rs. 8 per day to the prisoners. 
The stand taken by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was adopted 
by the Gujarat High Court in another judgment. 
E 
F 
The Rajasthan High Court directed the State Government to appoint a 
commission to go into the wage structure for the convicted prisoners and to 
frame rules. In the meanwhile, the Government was directed to pay @ Rs. 
14 per day to skilled convict labour, Rs. 12 per day to semi-skilled convict 
labour and Rs. 9 per day to non-skilled convict labour. 
The High Court ofHimachal Pradesh also directed the Government to 
appoint a Committee to look into the wage structure of the prisoners and 
prohibited deduction of maintenance charges from the wages payable to the 
•. 
prisoners. 
G 
Being aggrieved, the various State Governments filed appeal~ before 
this Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD : Per Thomas, J. (M.M. Punchhi, CJI., and D.P. Wadhwa, J. 
H concurring on the conditions and directions issued to various State 
STA TE OF GUJARAT v. H.C. OF GUJARAT 
33 
Governments). 
I.I. It is lawful to employ the prisoners sentenced to rigorous 
imprisonment to do hard labour whether he consents to do it or not. At the 
same time, it is imperative that the prisoners should be paid equitable wages 
for the work done by them. [53-F-G) 
In the matter of Prison Reforms, Enhancement of Wages to persons, 
(1983) KLT 512 and Gurdev Singh v. State, AIR (1976) HP 76, referred to. 
1.2. Article 23 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.