FOR ANALYTICAL NOTE:

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

AIR 1984 SC 802, (1984) 3 SCC 161
Definition of Bonded Labor in Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 is limited to a
situation where a debtor is forced to provide labor to a creditor. Several State Governments use
this to hide behind the shield of “forced labor” in contrast with “bonded labor”.
Facts:
The petitioner, Bandhu Mukti Morcha, is an organization motivated to release bonded laborers
in the country. It addressed a letter to a Judge of the Supreme Court complaining that in two
particular stone quarries in Faridabad district, there were a large number of laborers from
different States working under inhuman conditions and many of whom were bonded laborers.
They prayed for issuing a writ for proper implementation of the constitutional and statutory
provisions. The letter was accompanied by an annexation of signatures and thumbprints of said
bonded laborers.
Subsequently, this letter was treated as a writ petition and commissioners were appointed to
enquire about the matter. The submitted their report confirming the allegations made in the
petitioner’s letter.
Mine-lessees and stone crushers (respondents) given an opportunity to file their reply. Dr
Patwardhan appointed to carry out a socio-legal investigation in the aforementioned matters.
Court directed that the workmen whose names were set out in the writ petition and the report
of the advocates-commissioners would be free to go wherever they liked.
Question on maintainability of petition:
1. Article 32 of the Constitution was not attracted to this case as no fundamental right of
the petitioners or the work-men referred to in the petition were infringed. (The Court
finds that this preliminary objection is absolutely frivolous in nature because the State
Government has a duty towards uplifting the socio-economic conditions of the people
in their State, and in contrast, it is denying the benefit of social welfare law to citizens.
The State Government at least should not baulk an inquiry by the Court).
2. Whether a letter could be treated as a writ and if the Court could be moved to exercise
writ jurisdiction in the absence of a verified petition?
3. Court has no right to appoint a commission or investigating body under writ
jurisdiction. (The Court is merely assisting in the realization of constitutional
objectives. Learned Additional Solicitor General as well as Mr. Phadke relied on Order
XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules 1966 which shows that the said commission did not
fall within the ambit of this Order. This argument was said to be based on a
misconception of the reading of Article 32).
History
It was only in 1976 that the Parliament enacted the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
1976 providing for the abolition of bonded labor system with a view to preventing the economic
and physical exploitation of the weaker sections of the people. Several reports such as that on
Labour Welfare by Laxmi Dhar Misra, DG of Government of India and the Report of the
National Seminar on “Identification and Rehabilitation of Bonded Labor” from 7th to 9th
February 1983 show that the pernicious practice of bonded labor has not yet been totally
eradicated from the national scene and it continues to disfigure the social and economic life of
the country.
One success story is that of the Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh, where Writ Petitions
Nos. 1574 of 1982 and 54 of 1983 have helped in the release of over 3000 bonded laborers.

Bhagwati J.
Basis of interpreting Article 32 – Guided not by any verbal or formalistic canons of
construction but by the paramount object and purpose for which this article has been enacted
and its interpretation must receive light from the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the
Directive Principles. There is no limitation to proceedings other than being “appropriate” with
reference to enforcement of fundamental rights.1
Article 23 prohibits "traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced
labour".
Minimum requirements for a person to live with human dignity are derived from Article 21
read along with DPSP, particularly clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42. It
must include protection of health and strength of workers, men and women, and the children
of tender age against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to developing a health
manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane
conditions of work and maternity relief.
The order passed by the court is therefore a constitutional obligation which can be enforced
against the Government and State of Haryana under writ jurisdiction. The DPSP contained in
the aforementioned clauses are not enforceable in a court of law, and it may not be possible to
compel the State through judicial process to make provision by statutory enactment or
executive fiat for ensuring these basic essentials, but it may at least be contended that the State
can be obligated to ensure observance of such legislation as protects human dignity under
Article 21, more so in the context of Article 256.

Pathak J.
Article 32 does not indicate who can move the Court. The absence of a confining provision
means that a petitioner may be anyone in whom the law recognizes a standing to maintain an
action of such nature.2
Violation of Article 23(1) attracts the scope of Article 32.3

Sen J.
It may not very often be possible for the person who is deprived of his liberty to approach the
Court, as by virtue of such illegal and wrongful detention.

1
Concurring opinion by Pathak J. on “appropriate proceedings”.
2
Bhagwati J. takes the example of poor and deprived sections of society of the community who do not
possess adequate social and material resources and are bound to be disadvantages as against stronger
opponents in an adversarial system of justice.
3
Concurring opinion by Sen J. on attraction of 32 in violation of 23(1).
Litigation is not of adversarial nature. When there is an allegation of existence of bonded labor
in a particular State, the State should cause effective enquiries to be made into the matter and
cooperate with the Court to see that the illegal acts are ended at the earliest.

Bhagwati J. on 32(2)
Even if the Government in its own enquiry is satisfied that the complaint is untrue, the Court
must look into it because of its constitutional duty to enforce fundamental rights. Thus, the
practice in Courts has evolved to the point where a commissioner may be appointed for
reporting on the particular matter. All of the above that is applicable to 32 is also applicable to
226. The jurisdiction of High Courts under 226 is much wider as it extends not only to
fundamental rights but also legal rights.