BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA V/S UNION OF INDIA, 1984

CITATION	1984 SCR (2) 67
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16th December 1983
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA
RESPONDENT	UNION OF INDIA
BENCH	P.N. BHAGWATI, R.S. PATHAK, AMARENDRA NATH SEN

INTRODUCTION

The case of “Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984” involves the issue of enforcement of fundamental rights and securing economic and social justice for the disadvantaged sections of society. The case was initiated by a letter to Justice Bhagwati highlighting the challenges faced by workers in stone quarries of Haryana and called for implementation of the constitutional safeguards and benefits secured to them under various laws. The case discusses maintainability of the writ petition, the meaning of bonded labour and the report made by the commission appointed by the Supreme Court. The judgement underscores the duty of the state in ensuring justice to the workers and promoting the eradication of bonded labour. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioners are a non-governmental organisation working for the cause of eradication of bonded labour in India. In a letter to Justice Bhagwati, they drew attention to the miserable living conditions of labourers in the country with specific reference to workers of certain stone quarries in the district of Faridabad in the state of Haryana. The letter highlighted the fact that constitutional safeguards and various social welfare schemes for these workers were not being implemented. The court, treating the letter as a writ petition, appointed a commission to inquire into the issue. In its report, the commission confirmed the allegations of the petitioner and noted that the work environment was full of dust, there was no provision of safe drinking water, no sheltered home for the workers, no facilities for medical treatment or schooling. In addition, the workers were being forced to provide labour and were not allowed to leave the premises and no compensation was awarded to them for injuries caused due to accidents during the course of employment. 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

The following laws are involved in the present case:

1. Mines Act, 1952
2. Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 
3. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970
4. Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976
5. Minimum Wages Act, 1948
6. Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
7. Article 21 and 32 of the Indian Constitution

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the letter written by the petitioners is maintainable as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Whether the Court is empowered to appoint a commission to investigate into allegations made in a writ petition under Article 32?
3. Whether reports of such commissions hold any evidentiary value?
4. Whether the meaning of ‘bonded labourers’ as assigned in Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 can be used to refer to the labourers working in the stone quarries of Haryana?

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER

1. The petitioner alleged that a large number of labourers from different parts of the country were working in stone quarries in district Faridabad, Haryana, under inhuman and intolerable conditions.
2. A large number of these labourers were bonded labourers, subjected to bonded labour in violation of their fundamental rights.
3. The petitioner claimed that the provisions of the Constitution and various social welfare laws passed for the benefit of the said workmen were not being implemented in regard to these labourers.
4. The petitioner provided specific names of the stone quarries and particulars of labourers who were working, highlighting the specific instances of alleged bonded labour and non-implementation of welfare laws.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. The respondents contended that Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is not applicable in the present case as no fundamental right of the petitioner or the workers has been infringed.
2. A communication sent by a party to this Court should not be regarded as a writ petition. The Court is not empowered in a proceeding under Article 32 to appoint a commission or investigating body to enquire into allegations made in a writ petition.
3. Reports of such commissions have not undergone cross-examination and therefore hold no evidentiary value.
4. The labourers in the stone quarries and stone crushers in Haryana might be forced labourers but they do not come under the meaning of the expression ‘bonded labourers’ as under Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court rejected the contention of the respondent regarding the maintainability of the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. It points out that the State Government is charged with the duty to ensure social and economic justice and equality of status and opportunity for all. When a complaint has been brought forth regarding the challenges faced by the workers in meeting their basic necessities, the State should be anxious to ensure social and economic justice for the workmen. The workers are being held in miserable conditions without adequate food, water or shelter which is violative of their fundamental right to life with human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court mentions that the plain language of the Article 32(1) clarifies that whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right, anyone can move the Supreme Court for enforcement of such fundamental right. It specified that any member of the public, acting bona fide and on behalf of a person(s) of a disadvantaged position, may move the court even by just writing a letter. 

The Court highlighted that Article 32 states that the Supreme Court can be moved for enforcement of a fundamental right by any ‘appropriate’ proceeding. There is no limitation with regard to the kind of proceeding except that it be appropriate. The appropriateness must be viewed and judged in the context of the particular proceeding. 

The Court noted that it is an obligation of an adversarial procedure that each party must produce their own evidence which may be tested by cross examination by the other side. There is no such constitutional compulsion under any proceeding under the Constitution of India.

The Court underscores the challenges faced by the poor and disadvantaged in presenting relevant material before itself to support their cases, especially when represented pro bono. To address this, the Supreme Court has adopted a practice of appointing commissions to gather facts and data in cases related to the breach of fundamental rights for the weaker sections of society. The appointed commissioner’s report serves as prima facie evidence, allowing parties to dispute facts through affidavits. The court then considers the report and affidavits, maintaining flexibility in weighing the evidentiary value. It points out that mandating cross examination of such report shall introduce an adversarial character to such a proceeding which is undesirable. Order XXVI of CPC does not detract from the inherent power of the Supreme Court to appoint a commission if it is found necessary for the purpose of securing enforcement of a fundamental right under exercise of its powers under Article 32. 

The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 shall apply to the stone quarries and the owners must secure the rights and benefits entitled to the workers under the Act. In addition to the entitlements and advantages provided under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act and its rules, a worker who migrates between states is also entitled, as per Section 21, to the benefits outlined in the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1923, The Payment of Wages Act of 1936, The Employees’ State Insurance Act of 1948, The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952, and the Maternity Benefit Act of 1961.

The Court highlighted the difficulty in enforcing the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 if the State and employers could insist that the labourers must first prove that they are providing forced labour in consideration of an advance or other economic consideration received by them. The Court emphasized that such a requirement would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the labourers to establish that they are bonded labourers, as they would have no evidence to prove that any advance or economic consideration was provided to them by the employer. The Court was critical of the State’s narrow interpretation and emphasized the Act’s broader aim of eradicating forced labour in any form, rather than narrowly focusing on the technical definition of bonded labourers.

ANALYSIS

1. PILs – Public Interest Litigation or PIL is a form of litigation which widens the scope of locus standi with regard to filing complaints. Under PILs, any member of the public may file a petition addressing an issue that affects a large number of people in the society and is in public interest. This case portrays PILs as a challenge and opportunity for the government to make basic human rights meaningful for marginalized groups, ensuring social and economic justice as mandated by the constitution. PIL is depicted as a non-confrontational approach, where the court aims to assist rather than challenge executive authority. The primary focus is on the observance of legislative and executive programs designed to benefit the disadvantaged, with the court playing a supportive role in realizing constitutional objectives related to justice and human rights.
2. Proceedings under the Constitution of India – The general procedure for producing evidence and its verification by the process of cross examination by the opposite party is of adversarial nature and is not applicable to proceedings for enforcement of a fundamental right or any other part of the Constitution. 
3. Aiding the disadvantaged – The court, at several instances, sheds light on the challenges faced by the disadvantaged sections of society in approaching the court to secure justice. It has, therefore, made the procedure for enforcement of fundamental rights more accessible to the disadvantaged. 

CONCLUSION

In rendering its judgment, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the respondent’s objections, underscoring the state’s duty to ensure social and economic justice. The court interpreted Article 32 liberally, allowing any concerned individual to approach the court for the enforcement of fundamental rights, even through a simple letter. It recognized the challenges faced by the poor and disadvantaged in presenting evidence, leading to the court’s practice of appointing commissions to gather facts. The court maintained flexibility in weighing evidentiary value and rejected the need for cross-examination of commission reports, emphasizing the undesirable introduction of an adversarial character. The judgment highlighted the broader objective of statutes like the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, critiquing narrow interpretations. The court’s stance in this case not only reinforces the accessibility of justice for the disadvantaged but also underscores the proactive role of the judiciary in addressing issues of public interest and constitutional importance.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/595099/

This Article is written by Astha Samal student of National Law University Odisha; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.