Page 1

1

REPORTABLE      

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT     PETITION     (CIVIL)     NO.     3922     OF     1985   

PUBLIC UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES  .. Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. .. Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

K.     S.     Radhakrishnan,     J.   

1. Through this Public Litigation, the petitioner has brought to the  

notice of this Court tell-tale miseries of bonded labourers in our  

country and their exploitation and the necessity of identifying and  

checking the practice of bonded labour in this country and to  

rehabilitate those who are victims of this practice.  

Page 2

2

2. This Court, while interpreting the provision of the Bonded Labour  

System (Abolition) Act, 1976, (for short ‘the BLS (A) Act) in the light  

of the constitutional provision like Article 23, The Minimum Wages Act  

1948, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, Inter-State  

Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of  

Service) Act 1979, The Mines Act 1952 gave various directions  

including the setting up of Vigilance Committees, District Magistrates,  

etc. for the purpose of identifying and freeing bonded labourers and to  

draw up a scheme or programme for a better and more meaningful  

rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers and to ensure  

implementation of the BLS (A), Act, 1976.  In Bandhua Mukti  

Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161, Neerja Chaudhary v.  

State of M.P. (1984) 3 SCC 243 this Court took the view that failure  

to rehabilitate freed bonded labourers would violate Articles 21 and 23  

of the Constitution.  In P. Sivaswamy v. State of Andha Pradesh  

(1988) 4 SCC 466 this Court held that the grant of financial assistance  

by the States of Rs.738/- per family of the released bonded labourers  

was inadequate for rehabilitation.  Court held that the States,  

employers have a duty to rehabilitate the released bonded labourers.  

Page 3

3

3. This Court, dealing while dealing with this case, passed an  

interim order dated 13th May, 1994, (reported in (1994) 5 SCC 116)  

and gave various directions which are as under:  

“(1) To identify the bonded labourers and update the  existing list of such bonded labourers as well as to identify  the villages where this practice is prevalent.

(2) To identify the employers exploiting the bonded  labourers and to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings  against such employers.

(3) To extinguish/discharge any existing debt and or  bonded liability and to ensure them an alternative means of  livelihood.

(4) To appoint an independent body such as a local non- political social action group to collect independent  information and details of—

(a) the prevalence of the exploitative practice of  bonded labour and

(b) employers or their agents perpetrating the wilful  violation of the law by encouraging and abetting the  practice of bonded labour.

(5) To provide employment to such bonded labourers as  agricultural workers at the prescribed minimum wage rate  and/or provide the landless bonded labourers with  agricultural land, with a view to ensure an alternative  means of livelihood.

(6) To provide adequate shelter, food, education to the  children of the bonded labourers and medical facilities to  the bonded labourers and their families as part of a  rehabilitation package.

Page 4

4

(7) To ensure— (a) regular inspection by the Labour Commissioner  

concerned to keep the contractors who have in the past  employed bonded labourers under watch,

(b) setting up of Vigilance Committees in each  district,

(c) the District Magistrates concerned to send  quarterly reports to the Supreme Court Legal Aid  Committee or to any Commissioner appointed by the court  for this purpose,

(d) the setting up of rural credit facilities such as  grameen banks, cooperatives etc. from which short-term  interest free loans can be availed without security, since the  root cause of bonded labour seems to be the lack of  availability of funds (credit through an institutional  network).

(8) To initiate criminal prosecution against the  contractors/employers or their agents who engage bonded  labour and employ children below the age of 14 without  adequate monetary compensation by paying wages below  the minimum wage rate, as prescribed under the Minimum  Wages Act.

(9) To initiate criminal prosecution against those employers,  contractors or their agents who make part payment of  wages by way of Khesri dal which is known to cause  permanent disability — lathyrites.

2. With specific reference to the State of Madhya  Pradesh, this Hon'ble Court gave the following additional  directions:

(i) To provide data to this Hon'ble Court in respect  of prosecutions launched against various employers already  identified in proceedings before this Hon'ble Court as having  employed bonded labourers in the context of Harwaha  System.

Page 5

5

(ii) To investigate and provide data to this Hon'ble  Court in respect of the fate of those bonded labourers  identified and allegedly freed from the Harwaha System.

(iii) To report the present extent of cultivation of  Khesri dal within Rewa and Satna districts as well as such  other districts in which it may also be cultivated.

(iv) To report the steps taken by the State  Government to prohibit the cultivation and consumption of  Khesri dal.

(v) To report the fate of persons already identified  as suffering from lathyrites and the steps taken by the  State Government to provide free medical aid and facilities  to such persons.

(vi) To provide the steps taken, if any, for the  rehabilitation of bonded labourers freed from the Harwaha  System and the rehabilitation of persons suffering from  lathyrites within the State of Madhya Pradesh.”

3. All the State Governments should issue directions  forthwith to the Collector and District Magistrate of each  district for making the necessary compliance. We also direct  that all the State Governments would file a detailed report  supported by an affidavit of a Senior Officer indicating the  manner and the extent to which these directions have been  complied with and also indicating therein the programme  drawn up for full implementation of these directions. The  report of the State Governments should also contain the  detailed information required to be furnished in accordance  with these directions. These reports be filed by each State  Government by the end of August 1994. The matter be  listed in the first week of September 1994.

4. The Registry to ensure that a copy of this order is  made available to each State Government through their  standing counsel, in addition to Mr Kapil Sibal, Senior

Page 6

6

Advocate and the other learned counsel appearing in these  matters.”

4. The National Human Rights Commission (for short the ‘NHRC’)  

has been entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring and over-

seeing the implementation of its directions as well as provisions of the  

BLS (A) Act in all the States and Union Territories vide this Court’s  

order dated 11.05.1997.  The Expert Group constituted by the NHRC  

submitted its Action Taken Report (ATR) on 6.6.2001 and this Court  

vide order dated 5.5.2004 reported in Public Union for Civil  

Liberties v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 381 gave  

the following directions:

“1. All States and Union Territories must submit their status  report in the form prescribed by NHRC every six months.

2. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall  constitute Vigilance Committees at the district and sub- divisional levels in accordance with Section 13 of the Act,  within a period of six months from today.

3. All the State Governments and Union Territories shall make  proper arrangements for rehabilitating released bonded  labourers. Such rehabilitation could be on land-based basis or  non-land basis or skilled/craft-based basis depending upon  the choice of bonded labourer and his/her inclination and past  experience. If the States are not in a position to make  arrangements for such rehabilitation, then it shall identify two  philanthropic organisations or NGOs with proven track record

Page 7

7

and good reputation, with basic facilities for rehabilitating  released bonded labourers within a period of six months.

4. The State Governments and Union Territories shall chalk  out a detailed plan for rehabilitating released bonded  labourers either by itself or with the involvement of such  organisations or NGOs within a period of six months.

5. The Union and State Governments shall submit a plan  within a period of six months for sharing the money under the  modified Centrally Sponsored Scheme, in the case where the  States wish to involve such organisations or NGOs.

6. The State Governments and Union Territories shall make  arrangements to sensitise the District Magistrate and other  statutory authorities/committees in respect of their duties  under the Act.”

5. The NHRC later submitted yet another report on 10.8.2009 high-

lighting the remedial steps to be taken for eradication of bonded  

labour and child labour in the country.  The NHRC in its report stated  

that its officials had been conducting detailed reviews on the status of  

the implementation of the Act in the various States/Union Territories  

(UTs).  The report stated that these reviews were forwarded by the  

NHRC to the respective States/UTs for the necessary follow up action,  

and they were required to submit ATR to the NHRC.   The NHRC has  

stated as follows:

“ATRs have been received from most of the State  Governments but as they were incomplete they had to be

Page 8

8

returned for clarification and furnishing additional  information before they could be accepted by the  Commission.  These States are being reminded and this will  continue till follow up action is completed.  Repeat visits to  a few States (Orissa, M.P., Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Punjab,  Rajasthan, Karnataka and Bihar) have to be undertaken as  the track record of compliance with the directions issued by  the Commission is considered to be unsatisfactory by these  States.”

6. A review noticed that the States/UTs were supposed to receive  

assistance to the tune of Rs.2 Lakh per district once every 3 years for  

conducting surveys.  However surveys had been conducted only a few  

States, that too in respect of only a few selected areas.  Further, it was  

also noted that in many instances bonded labourers were found and  

reported, the district administration had relented and dropped the  

cases.  The NHRC in its report cited the instances of Tamil Nadu to the  

following effect:

“….. to illustrate, in Tamil Nadu, 25000 cases out of 38,886  (cases of ) bonded labourers identified were dropped  leaving only 13,886 bonded labourers;

….. in Malkangiri district (which falls in the KBK region) a  survey was conducted in 2001-02 with the help of NGO’s  (where) 707 bonded labourers were identified but (the)  district administration dropped 688 cases leaving only 19  bonded labourers to be release.”

Page 9

9

7. The NHRC further states that Investigation/inquiry into specific  

complaints about bonded labourers were generally left by the  

States/UTs to be undertaken by the field officers of very low ranks  

who lack both professionalism as well as sensitivity to conduct such  

inquires and even existence of bonded labourers were detected in the  

States/UTs, States/UTs permitted compromise or settlement though  

the Act itself does not contemplate such a measure.  The NHRC noted  

with concern that though one of the modes of identifying and  

detecting existence of bonded labour was conducting raids on  

households and workplaces, this however, had not been taken  

recourse to by most States, except the State of Maharashtra.  The  

NHRC in its report stated that even though the guidelines on the  

methodology of identification of bonded labourers formulated by Shri  

S.R. Shankaran, Chairman of the Expert Group constituted in the year  

2001-02 had been circulated to all the States/UTs but there was no  

evidence on the ground of them being adopted and implemented.  

The report further pointed out that according to the Ministry of Labour  

the following features came out clearly in the reports received from  

the States:

Page 10

10

“a) No fresh surveys are being conducted in the States.  

Wherever surveys have been conducted in the last few  

years, no bonded labourers could be found.

b) Whereabouts of about 20,000 bonded labourers are  

reported to be untraced.  Registers about bonded labourers  

identified, released and rehabilitated are not being  

maintained as required under Rule 7 of the BLS (A) rules.

c) Budget provisions are not being made on the ground that  

there are no bonded labourers.

d) All the Union Territories have been reporting that they  

have no Bonded labourers.”

8.  The NHRC accordingly requested this Court to give the following  

directions to the States/UTs:

“a) Periodical conduct of survey in the affected areas is  

one of the measures which would source eradication of  

bonded labour system in compliance with the BLS (A) Act.  

Section 14(e) of the Act casts a statutory responsibility on  

the Vigilance Committees constituted in each district such  

surveys.  It suggested that fresh survey be conducted by  

all States and repeated once in three years.

Page 11

11

b) The constitution of Vigilance Committees in  

all States at district and sub-divisional level was a  

necessary step in the process of property conducting  

surveys.  Further these committees should be  

reconstituted once every 2 years.

c) Since there was a need for a proper methodology for  

conducting such surveys it also suggests that the  

Guidelines issued by Shri S.R. Shanakaran, Chairman of  

the Expert Committee constituted by the NHRC be  

adopted with suitable modifications to suit local conditions.

d)  While disposing of cases under the BLS (A) Act the  

trying Magistrate should have recourse to the summary  

procedure as laid down in Section 21(2) of the Act in all  

cases brought before him.

e) It was also suggested that to make the  

rehabilitation package under the Centrally Sponsored  

Scheme more meaningful, there was a need for it not to  

be confined to the limit of Rs.20,000, at which it stands at  

present.”

Page 12

12

9. This Court, vide its order dated 9.7.2010, directed all the  

States/UTs to file their response to the NHRC’s report.  The  

States/UTs were required to respond at least on the following aspects:

a)  When was the last bi-annual report by the concerned  

State/UT submitted to the NHRC?

b) When was the last survey, as stipulated under the Act  

undertaken by the State/UT?

c) Whether the Vigilance Committee for the implementation  

of the Act has been constituted in all the districts in the  

States/UTs?

10. This Court vide its order dated 1.10.2010, following the note  

submitted by the amicus curiae on 27.9.2010, directed the Union of  

India to submit the data as to the amount which the Centre is  

releasing to the States/UTs and whether they were, in fact, using the  

amount for the purpose for which they were released.  

11. In pursuance to that order, the Union of India filed its affidavit on  

16.12.2010.  It was noticed that only five states had, till then,  

furnished utilization certificates to the Union of India indicating

Page 13

13

utilization of central funds for survey.  This Court, then, passed an  

order on 16.12.2010 directing the Union of India to call for the  

utilization certificates from all the States.  Union of India later in its  

affidavit on 25.4.2011 stated that the Ministry of Labour and  

Employment has provided Rs.494 lakhs as Central Assistance for  

conducting surveys to the various State Governments during the  

periods from 2001-2001 to 2009-2010.  The Affidavit revealed that, in  

majority of the States, no surveys have been conducted after the year  

2002-2003, namely, Punjab, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar,  

Jharkhand, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttrakhand.  It was  

stated that only a handful of States have conducted surveys in  

subsequent years, and that in many instances, the Survey Reports  

were still awaited.   

12. This Court then passed an order dated 25.4.2011 directing the  

States of Haryana and Andhra Pradesh to explain what steps they have  

taken to implement the provisions of 1976 Act.  Noticing that those  

States were not taking effective steps, this Court passed another order  

dated 26.8.2011 directing them to submit their Accounts to the  

Ministry of Labour, Government of India with regard to disbursement

Page 14

14

of amounts by Central Government for survey and rehabilitation of  

bonded labour.  The responses from those States are far from  

satisfactory.

13. The NHRC submitted its revised report dated 3.9.2011 before this  

Court.  We notice that the response from the States to the said report  

is also not satisfactory.  The revised report of the NHRC reiterated that  

the analysis of the half yearly report sent by the States/UTs reveals  

the following aspects:

“(i) The reports appear to have been prepared in a very  casual and stereotype manner.

(ii) They contain mostly nil information as far as  conducting fresh surveys for identification of bonded  labourers is concerned.

(iii) In some States like UP nearly 700 released bonded  labourers have been awaiting rehabilitation for years due to  no provision of funds in the budget needed for  rehabilitation.

(iv) The outcome of legal and penal action against the  offending employers or bonded labour keepers is nil.

(v) Not a single case has been reported so far which goes  to show that an offending employer had been convicted by  way of imprisonment.

(vi) It is almost confirmed beyond doubt that (a) efforts at  identification of bonded labourers through fresh surveys are  lackadaisical and the outcome of such surveys is nil (b)  there is inordinate delay in securing rehabilitation of

Page 15

15

released labourers and (c) the penalties awarded are not  proportional to the judicial severity of the crime.”

14. The NHRC further stated that while examining about 400 cases,  

only in one case, the Commission found that the ground level situation  

confirmed to fulfillment of all requirements under the Minimum Wages  

Act, that the employer paid wages according to the law and has not  

detained anyone.  Report states that workmen are usually recruited to  

brick kilns by middlemen on payment of an advance or other  

allurements, but at the close of the brick kilns operations, the  

advances paid at the time of recruitment are adjusted with wages due  

to the workmen in an arbitrary manner, to the disadvantage of the  

worker. It is unnecessary to dilate the matter further.  Suffice it to say  

that on 30.6.2011, in all 2780 cases involving about 1 lakh bonded  

labourers have been registered in the Commission and presently 841  

cases are under consideration of the Commission.  The NHRC also  

specifically brought to the knowledge of this Court, two specific  

complaints, which are pending for compliance before the Government  

of Andhra Pradesh and with the Governments of West Bengal,  

Jharkhand, Bihar and NCT of Delhi.   The NHRC has sought proper  

directions from this Court so that the concerned States would take

Page 16

16

steps for reporting compliance to NHRC at the earliest.  It is useful to  

refer to the situations in the States of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal,  

Jharkhand, Bihar and NCT of Delhi, which are as follows:

“RE: ANDHRA PRADESH

22. The first complaint is with respect to the State of  Andhra Pradesh and pertains to the plight of labourers  working in stone quarries on National Highway No. 9  at a distance of about 22 kms from Vijaywada. The  issue was brought to light in 2005.  However, despite  repeated efforts when no results were forthcoming,  the NHRC constituted a team to interact with the  labourers and submit a detailed report.  The team  accordingly submitted its report “confirming the  allegation that as many as 5000 quarry workers at the  time of the visit [i.e.30.06.09 to 5.07.09] were living  and working under conditions of debt bondage.”  Pursuant to the report “even though the Chief  Secretary appeared in person before the Commission  on 5.10.09 and gave an assurance about the  implementation of labour laws and provision of basic  facilities, till date that action on the part of the State  Government and the District Administration, Krishna  remains incomplete and the State Government is  seeking time again and again.

RE: WEST BENGAL, JHARKHAND, BIHAR AND NCT OF  DELHI

23. The second complaint of then NHRC pertains to the  plight of bonded children from West Bangal,  Jharkhand and Bihar working under bonded conditions  in certain Zari Factories of Kotlamubarakpur Police

Page 17

17

Station area of Delhi had been released and rescured  through raids “no steps have been taken by the  administration of NCT of Delhi for issue of release  certificates to the victims and for their rehabilitation.  Instead of handing over the release certificates to the  victims, these were sent to the Resident  Commissioners of the three originating States namely  West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar.”   The NHRC has  further pointed out that “in the process more than 2  years lapsed and the children who were supposed to  have been rehabilitated by now could not be  rehabilitated due to acts of negligence both of the part  of Government of NCT of Delhi [as] also [the]  Government[s] of Bihar, West Bengal and Jharkhand.”  Even though the complaint dates back to 2005 and  proceedings were initiated by the NHRC in 2006, “till  date there is no confirmation from the”  States  concerned “as to whether all the 129 working children  who were rescued and released from work in the Zari  making units of NCT of Delhi have been fully  rehabilitated.”

15. Shri A.K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel who assisted the Court  

as Amicus Curiae, submitted that in the light of the NHRC report dated  

10.8.2009 and the affidavits filed by the States/UTs and the Union of  

India and subsequent revised report of NHRC dated 3.9.2011, it is  

imperative that certain directions are to be issued to the various  

States/UTs for proper implementation of the provisions of the 1976  

Act.  

Page 18

18

16. After hearing the amicus curiae and other learned counsel  

appearing in these proceedings and also taking note of the previous  

orders passed by this Court, we are inclined to give the following  

directions, apart from the directions already issued:

(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.

(2) The responsibility of conducting the surveys 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 be done in every three years and Committees also  

should be reconstituted in every three years.   

(3) Bonded labour, it may be noticed, is rampant in brick kilns,  

stone quarries, crushing mines, beedi manufacturing,  

carpet weaving, construction industries, agriculture, in rural  

and urban unorganized and informal sector, power looms  

and cotton handlooms, fish processing etc. The Vigilance  

Committees are directed to give more attention to these  

areas and take prompt action in case violation is noticed.

(4)  Large numbers of children are working as domestic help in  

the urban, town and rural areas with no chance to go to

Page 19

19

schools even though the education from standard I to VIII  

is compulsory under the Right of Children to Free and  

Compulsory Education Act, 2009.  Local Panchayats and  

local bodies should identify such children and ensure that  

they get proper education.  We are not unmindful of the  

fact that in some households they treat the domestic help  

just like their children and give food, clothing and education  

but they are exception.    

(5) Many of the States/UTs reporting NIL status with respect to  

existence of Bonded labourers.  This might be due to the  

faulty methodology adopted by them for conducting such  

surveys. Guidelines on the methodology of identification of  

bonded labourers formulated by Shri SR Shankaran,  

Chairman of the Expert Group constituted by the NHRC be  

followed and implemented by all the States/UTs with  

suitable modifications to suit local conditions.

(6) All the States/UTs should calculate firm requirements of  

fund for rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers and steps  

be taken to enhance the rehabilitation package from the  

present limit of Rs.20,000.

(7) The District Magistrates are directed to effectively  

implement Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Act and we expect  

them to discharge their functions with due diligence, with  

empathy and sensitivity, taking note of the fact that the Act  

is a welfare legislation.  

Page 20

20

(8) The District Magistrate and the State Government / UTs  

would see that the Minimum Wages Act, the Workmen  

Compensation Act, the Inter- State Migrant Workmen Act,  

Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act are also  

properly and effectively implemented.

(9) Directions are issued to all Gram Panchayats, local bodies  

to report, in case they come across any case of bonded  

labour, to the District Magistrate who will take appropriate  

follow up action under the Act.  

(10) The States of Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand,  

Bihar and the NCT of Delhi are directed to ensure  

compliance with orders passed by the NHRC as highlighted  

in its revised report.”

(11) The States and the Union Territories should continue to  

submit 6 monthly reports to NHRC.

(12) All the States / UTs to constitute Vigilance Committee, if not  

already constituted within six months.”

17. This Court has already given various directions in its order dated  

5.5.2004 passed in Public Union for Civil Liberties v. State of  

Tamil Nadu and Others (2004) 12 SCC 381, authorizing the NHRC to  

monitor the implementation of the provisions of the 1976 Act which we  

re-iterate and direct NHRC to effectively monitor and implement the

Page 21

21

provisions of the Act.  The orders passed by this Court, time to time, in  

writ petitions are to be duly complied with the NHRC, Union of India,  

States and UTs.

18. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of so as to enable the  

NHRC to take appropriate steps and effectively supervise for carrying  

out the directions issued by this Court and the provision of BLS (A)  

Act.  If the States/UTs are not implementing the directions given by  

this Court, NHRC is free to move this Court for further orders.  We  

record our deep appreciation to the efforts made by learned senior  

counsel –  Shri A.K. Ganguli and for sparing his valuable time for a  

public cause.  This Court is deeply indebted to him which we place on  

record.

……………………………………….…J (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

………………………………………..J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi, October 15, 2012