{"id":188331,"date":"1996-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-01T18:46:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-01T13:16:23","slug":"m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","title":{"rendered":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996<\/div>\n
Author: Hansaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh, B.L. Hansaria, S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM.C. MEHTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/12\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA, S.B. MAJMUDAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nHANSARIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
     “I am the child.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     All the world waits for my coming.
\n     All the earth watches with interest to see what I shall
\n     become. Civilization hangs in the balance,
\n     For what I am, the world of tomorrow will be.
\n     I am the child.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     You hold in your hand my destiny.
\n     You determine, largely, whether I shall succeed or
\n     fail, Give\t me, I\tpray you, these things that make for
\n     happiness. Train  me, I  beg  you,\t that  I  may  be  a
\n     blessing to the world”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Manie Gene Cole
\n     It may be that the aforesaid appeal lies at the back of
\nthe saying  that “child\t is the\t father of  man”. To  enable
\nfathering of  a valiant\t and vibrant  man, the child must be
\ngroomed well  in the  formative years  of his  life. He must
\nreceive education,  acquire knowledge  of man  and materials
\nand blossom  in such  an atmosphere that on reaching age, he
\nis found  to be\t a man\twith a mission, a man who matters so
\nfor as the society is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Our Constitution  makers, wise  and sagacious  as\tthey
\nwere, had  known that  India of\t their vision would not be a
\nreality if  the children of the country are not nurtured and
\neducated. For  this, their  exploitation by different profit
\nmakers for  their personal gain had to be first indicted. It
\nis this\t need, which  has found manifestation in Article 24,
\nwhich is  one of  the two  provisions  in  Part\t IV  of\t our
\nConstitution on\t the fundamental right against exploitation.
\nThe farmers were aware that this prohibition alone would not
\npermit the  child to  contribute  its  mite  to\t the  nation
\nbuilding work  unless it  receives at least basic education.
\nArticle 45 was therefore inserted in our paramount parchment
\ncasting a duty on the state to endeavour to provide free and
\ncompulsory education  to children.  (It is  known  that\t his
\nprovision in  Part V  of  our  Constitution  is,  after\t the
\ndecision by  a Constitution  Bench of  this  Court  in\tUnni
\nKrishnan, 1993-1  SCC 645,  has acquired  the  status  of  a
\nfundamental right).  Our Constitution  contains\t some  other
\nprovisions also\t to which  we shall  advert later,  desiring
\nthat a\tchild must  be given  opportunity  and\tfacility  to
\ndevelop in a healthy manner.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Despite the  above, the  stark reality  is that  in our
\ncountry like  many others, children are exploited lot. Child
\nlabour is  a big  problem and has remained intractable, even
\nafter about  50 years  of  our\thaving\tbecome\tindependent,
\ndespite various\t legislative enactments,  to which  we shall
\nrefer in  detail subsequently,\tprohibiting employment\tof a
\nchild in a number of occupations and avocations.
\n3A.  In our  country, Sivakasi\twas one\t taken as  the worst
\noffender in  the matter of violating prohibition f employing
\nchild labour.  As the situation thee had became intolerable,
\nthe public  spirited  lawyer,  Shri  MC\t Mehta,\t thought  it
\nnecessary to  invoke this court’s power under Article 32, as
\nafter all  the fundamental  right of the children guaranteed
\nby Article  24 was  being grossly  violated. He,  therefore,
\nfiled this  petition. It  once come  to be disposed of by an
\norder of October 31, 1990 by nothing that in Sivakasi, as on
\nDecember 31, 1985, there were 221 registered match factories
\nemploying 27,338  workmen of  whom 2941\t were children.\t The
\nCourt then  noted that\tthe manufacturing process of matches
\nand fireworks (for the manufacture of which also Sivakasi is
\na traditional centre) is hazardous, giving rise to accidents
\nincluding fatal\t cases. So,  keeping in\t view the provisions
\ncontained in  Article 39(f)  and 45  of the Constitution, it
\ngave certain  directions as  to how  the quality  of life of
\nchildren employed  in the  factories could  be improved. The
\ncourt also  felt the  need of  constituting a  committee  to
\noversee the directions given.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Subsequently, suo\tmoto cognizance\t was  taken  in\t the
\npresent\t case\titself\twhen   news  about  an\t“unfortunate
\naccident”, in  one of  the Sivakasi  cracker  factories\t was
\npublished.  At\t the  direction\t  of  the  Court,  Tamilnadu
\nGovernment filed  a detailed  counter stating,\tinter  alia,
\nthat number of persons to die was 39. The Court gave certain
\ndirections regarding the payment of compensation and thought
\nthat an advocates committee should visit the area and make a
\ncomprehensive report  relating to the various aspects of the
\nmatter, as  mentioned in  the order  of August 14, 1991. The
\ncommittee was  to consist  of (1)  Shri R.K.  Jain, a senior
\nadvocate; (2)  Ms. Indira Jaisingh, another senior advocate;
\nand (3) Shri KC Dua, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The committee  has done a commendable job. It submitted
\nits report  on 11.11.91 containing many recommendations, the
\nsummer of which is to be found at pages 24-25 of the report,
\nreading as below:-\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  State of  Tamilnadu should  be
\n     directed to  ensure  that\tchildren
\n     are  not  employed\t in  fire  works
\n     factories.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  The children\temployed in  the
\n     match   factories\t  for\t packing
\n     purposes must  work in  a\tseparate
\n     premises for packing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Employers   should\tnot   be
\n     permitted to  take\t work  from  the
\n     children for  more than six hours a
\n     day.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  Proper  transport   facilities
\n     should be provided by the employers
\n     and State\tGovt. for  travelling of
\n     the children  from their  homes  to
\n     their work places and back.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (e)  Facilities   for   recreation,
\n     socialisation and\teducation should
\n     be provided  either in  the factory
\n     or close to the factory.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (f)  Employers\tshould\t    make
\n     arrangements  for\tproviding  basic
\n     diets for\tthe children and in case
\n     they fail\tto do so, the Government
\n     may  be  directed\tto  provide  for
\n     basic  diet   –  one   meal  a  day
\n     programme of the State of Tamilnadu
\n     for school children may be extended
\n     to the child worker.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (g)  Piece-rate   wages  should  be
\n     abolished\tand  payment  should  be
\n     made on monthly basis. Wages should
\n     be commensurate to the work done by
\n     the children.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h)  All the workers working in the
\n     industry,\twhether\t  in  registered
\n     factories\t or    in   unregistered
\n     factories,\t  whether   in\t cottage
\n     industry  or   on\tcontract  basis,
\n     should   be   brought   under   the
\n     Insurance Scheme.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  Welfare Fund\t–  For\tSivakasi
\n     area, instead of present committee,
\n     a committee  should be  headed by a
\n     retired  High   Court  Judge  or  a
\n     person of\tequal  status  with  two
\n     social  workers,\twho  should   be
\n     answerable either\tto this\t Hon’ble
\n     Court or  to the  High Court as may
\n     be directed  by this Hon’ble Court.
\n     Employers\tshould\tbe  directed  to
\n     deposit Rs.2\/- per month per worker
\n     towards welfare  fund and the State
\n     should  be\t directed  to  give  the
\n     matching\t  contribution.\t     The
\n     employers of  all\tthe  industries,
\n     whether   it   is\t registered   or
\n     unregistered, whether it is cottage
\n     industry or  on contract  basis, to
\n     deposit  Rs.2\/-   per   month   per
\n     worker.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (j)  A  National\tCommission   for
\n     children’s welfare should be set up
\n     to\t prepare   a  scheme  for  child
\n     labour  abolition\t in   a\t  phased
\n     manner. Such a Commission should be
\n     answerable to  this  Hon’ble  Court
\n     directly and  should report to this
\n     Hon’ble   Court\tat    periodical
\n     intervals about the progress.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   We put  on record\tour appreciation for the commendable
\nwork done by the committee.\n<\/p>\n
7.   There is an affidavit of the president of the All India
\nChamber of  Match  Industries,\tSivakasi,  on  record  which
\ncontains its  reaction to  the recommendations of Committee.
\nIt is  not necessary  to deal with this affidavit. Objection
\nto the\tCommittee’s recommendations  was also  filed by\t the
\nPresident of  Tamilnadu Fireworks  and Amorces\tManufactures
\nAssociation. We do not propose to traverse this affidavit as
\nwell. Both of these contain general statements and denial of
\nwhat was found by the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
8.   For the  sake of  completeness, it\t may be\t stated that
\nthere are  on record  various  report  relating\t to  working
\nconditions etc.\t of child labour at Sivakasi. First of these
\nreports is  of a Committee which had been constituted by the
\nLabour Department  by the  Tamilnadu Government\t vide its GO
\nMS.  dated  19.3.34,  under  the  Chairmanship\tof  Thiru  N
\nHaribhaskar. The  report of  the Committee is voluminous, as
\nit runs\t into 181  pages and contains a number of annexures.
\nThe Committee  reviewed the  working conditions and measures
\ntaken to mitigate the sufferings of the child labour and has
\nmade various recommendations in Chapter XI of its report. We
\nalso have  a work  of collector of Kamarajar District titled
\n“Integrated Project  for the Betterment of Living Conditions
\nof  Women  and\tChildren  Employed  in\tMatch  Factories  in
\nSivakasi area.”\t This work  is of October 1985. There is yet
\nanother report\tdealing with the causes and circumstances of
\nthe fire explosions which had taken place on 12.7.91 at Dawn
\nAmorces\t Fireworks   Industries\t and  it  contains  remedial
\nmeasures. The  final report  relating to Sivakasi workers is
\nof 30th\t March, 1993  this relates  to elimination  of child
\nlabour in  the match  and firework  industries in Tamilnadu.
\nThe  representatives   of  the\t Department  of\t  Labour   &
\nEmployment, Social  Welfare ad\tEducation had  prepared this
\nreport in  collaboration with  UNICEF and  it speaks  of  “A
\nproposed strategy framework.”\n<\/p>\n
9.   The Government  of India  as well\thas  been  apprising
\nitself about the various aspects relating to child labour in
\nvarious industries. A 16 member committee had come to be set
\nup  by\ta  resolution  of  the\tLabour\tMinistry  dated\t 6\/7
\nFebruary,  1979\t  under\t the   chairmanship  of\t  Shri\tM.S.
\nGurupadaswamy.\tThe   Committee\t submitted   its  report  on
\n29.12.79  and\tmade  various\trecommendations\t which\t are
\ncontained in Chapter V The Labour Ministry, had subsequently
\nsurveyed the  problem of  child labour\tdepartmentally, as a
\npart  of   the\tobservance   of\t International\t Child\tYear
\nProgramme. The\treport (dated  24.6.81) mentions  about\t the
\nsurvey conducted in certain organised and unorganised sector
\nof industries.\tIt contains  an account of employment, wages
\nand earnings,  working\tconditions  and\t welfare  activities
\nrelating to  child labour  both in organised and unorganised
\nsectors. Chapter III of the report contains the conclusions,
\nof which  what has  been stated\t in para  4.5 deserves to be
\nnoted. The same is as below:-\n<\/p>\n
     Extreme\tpoverty,     lack     of
\n     opportunity for  gainful employment
\n     and intermittancy of income and low
\n     standards of  living  are\tthe  man
\n     reasons for  the wide prevalence of
\n     child labour. Though it is possible
\n     to identify  child\t labour\t in  the
\n     organised\tsector,\t  which\t form  a
\n     minuscule\tof   the   total   child
\n     labour, the  problem relates mainly
\n     to\t the  unorganised  sector  where
\n     utmost attention  needs to be paid.\n<\/p>\n
     The problem is universal but in our
\n     case it is more crucial.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Magnitude of the problem.\n<\/p>\n
10.  Sivakasi has  ceased to  be the  only centre  employing
\nchild labour.  The malady  is no  longer  confined  to\tthat
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
11.  A\twrite-up   in  Indian\tExpress\t of  25.10.1996\t has
\ndescribed Bhavnagar  as another Sivaskasi in making, as that
\ntown of\t about 4  lakh\tpopulation  has\t a  t  least  13,000
\nchildren employed  in 300  different industries. The problem
\nof child  labour in  India has indeed spread it fang far and
\nwide. This  would be  apparent from  the chart\twhich  finds
\nplace in  the commendable work of a social anthropologist of
\nUnited Nations\tVolunteer, Neera  Burra, published under the
\ntitle “Born  to Work  : Child  Labour in India”, as at pages
\nXXII to\t XXIV of  the book.  It is  useful to  extract\tthat
\nchart. It is a below:-\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
–<\/p>\n
\nIndustry\t    Location\t     Total\t    Child   Percentage\t o\nf\n\t\t\t\t     Workers\t    Workers Child Workers\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    to total\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    workers\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
Slate pencil\t    Mandsaur,\t      12,000\t    1000\t 8.3
\n\t\t    Madhya Pradesh
\nSlate\t\t    Markapur,\t      15,000\t    app.3750\t 25
\n\t\t    Andhra Pradesh
\nDiamond-cutting\t    Surat, Gujarat    100,000\t    15,000\t 15
\nAgate-cutting\t    Cambay, Gujarat   30,000\t   not known\t –
\nGem Polishing\t    Jaipur, Rajasthan 60,000\t    13,600\t 22.6
\nPowerloom Bhiwandi, Maharashtra\t      300,000\t    15,000\t  5
\nCotton hosiery\t    Tiruppur,\t      30,000\t     8,000\t 33.3
\n\t\t    Tamilnadu
\nCarpet weaving\t    Mirzapur-Bhadohi  200,000\t    150,000\t  75
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nCarpet weaving\t    Jammu & Kashmir app. 400,000    100,000\t  25
\nCarpet weaving\t    Rajasthan\t       30,000\t    12000\t  40
\nLock-making\t    Aligarh,\t       80,000,\t    7,000\t  8.7
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh      90,000\t   10,000\t  11.1
\nPottery\t\t    Khurja,\t       20,000\t    5,000\t  25
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nBrass Ware\t    Moradabad,\t       150,000\t   40,000,\t 26.6,
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh\t\t   45,000\t 30.0
\nMatch\t\t    Sivakasi,\t      not known\t   45,000\t  –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Tamilnadu
\nGlass\t\t    Firozabad,\t       200,000\t   50,000\t  25
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nSilk and\t    Varanasi,\t       11,900\t   4,409\t  37
\nsilk products\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nTextile\t\t    Varanasi,\t       3,512\t   1,108\t  31.5
\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nKnives\t\t    Rampur,\t       not known   3,000\t   –\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    Uttar Pradesh
\nHandicrafts\t    Jammu & Kashmir    90,000\t   26,478\t  29.42
\nSilk weaving\t    Bihar\t      not known\t  10,000\t    –\n<\/p>\n
Brocade and\t    Varanasi and      not known\t  300,000\t    –\n<\/p>\n
Zari industry\t    other centres,\n\t\t    Uttar Pradesh\nBrick-kilns\t    West Bengal\t      not known\t  35,000\t    -\nBeedi\t\t    India\t      3,275,000\t  3,275,00\t   10\nCircus industry\t    40 major circuses\t\t\t    12% of the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    entire labour\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    strength\nHandloom and\t    Jammu & Kashmir\t116,000\t  28,348\t   25\nHandicraft Industry\n<\/pre>\n
————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t(Source material ommitted)\n<\/p>\n
11.  According to the 1971 census 4.66 per cent of the child
\npopulation  in\tIndia  consisted  of  working  children.  In
\nabsolute numbers,  the 1971  census put\t the figure  at 10.7
\nmillion working\t children. On  the basis  of National Sample
\nSurvey 27th  round (1972-73)  the number of working children
\nas on  March, 1973  in the  age group  of 5-14 years’ may be
\nestimated at 16.3 million and based on the 32 round at 16.25
\nmillion on  1st March,\t1978 (14.68  million rural  and 1.57
\nmillion urban). According to 1981 census the figure has gone
\nto 11.16  million working  children.  As  estimated  by\t the
\nPlanning Commission on 1st March, 1983, there would be 15.70
\nmillion child  laborers, (14.03 rural and 1.67 urban) in the
\nage group of 10-14 years’ and 17.36 million in the age group
\nof 5-14\t years’. The  National\tSample\tSurvey\tOrganisation
\nestimates the  number at  17.58 million in 1985. None of the
\nofficial estimates included child workers in the unorganised
\nsector, and  therefore, are obviously gross under estimates.
\nEstimates from\tvarious non-governmental  sources as  to the
\nactual number  working children range from 44 million to 100
\nmillion.\n<\/p>\n
     (Figures of  1981 census  have been  quoted because the
\nreport relating to 1991 census has not yet been made public.
\nIt is understood that the same is under publication).\n<\/p>\n
12.  The aforesaid profile shows that child labour by now is
\nan all-India evil, though its acuteness differs from area to
\narea. So,  without a  concerted effort,\t both of the Central
\ngovernment and\tvarious\t State\tgovernments,  this  ignominy
\nwould not  get wiped out. We have, therefore, thought it fit
\nto travel  beyond the  confines of  Sivakasi to\t which place
\nthis petition  initially related.  In our  view, it would be
\nmore appropriate  to deal  with the  issue in wider spectrum
\nand broader  perspective taking it as a national problem and
\nnot appertaining  to any  one region  of the country. So, we
\nwould address  ourselves as  to how we can, and are required
\nto, tackle the problem of child labour, solution of which is
\nnecessary to build a better India.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Constitution Call\n<\/p>\n
13.  To accomplish the aforesaid task, we have first to note
\nthe constitutional  mandate and\t call on  the subject, which
\nare contained in the following articles:\n<\/p>\n
     “24. Prohibition  of employment  of
\n     children  in  factories,  etc.-  No
\n     child below  the  age  of\tfourteen
\n     years shall  be employed to work in
\n     any factory  or mine  or engaged in
\n     any other hazardous employment.
\n     39(e). that the health and strength
\n     of workers,  men and women, and the
\n     tender  age  of  children\tare  not
\n     abused and\t that citizens\tare  not
\n     forced  by\t economic  necessity  to
\n     enter avocations  unsuited to their
\n     age or strength:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     39(f).  that   children  are  given
\n     opportunities  and\t  facilities  to
\n     develop in\t a healthy manner and in
\n     conditions of  freedom and\t dignity
\n     and that  childhood and  youth  are
\n     protected against\texploitation and
\n     against\tmoral\t and\tmaterial
\n     abandonment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     41. Right to work, to education and
\n     to\t public\t assistance  in\t certain
\n     cases.- The State shall, within the
\n     limits of its economic capacity and
\n     development,     make     effective
\n     provision for securing the right to
\n     work, to  education and  to  public
\n     assistance\t    in\t    cases     of
\n     unemployment, old age, sickness and
\n     disablement, and  in other cases of
\n     undeserved want.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     45.   Provision\tfor   free   and
\n     compulsory education for children.-
\n     The  State\t  shall\t  endeavour   to
\n     provide, within  a\t period\t of  ten
\n     years from the commencement of this
\n     Constitution,    for    free    and
\n     compulsory\t  education    for   all
\n     children until  they  complete  the
\n     age of fourteen years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     47. Duty  of the State to raise the
\n     level of nutrition and the standard
\n     of living\tand  to\t improve  public
\n     health.- The State shall regard the
\n     raising of\t the level  of nutrition
\n     and the  standard of  living of its
\n     people  and   the\timprovement   of
\n     public health  as among its primary
\n     duties  and,   in\tparticular,  the
\n     State  shall   endeavour  to  bring
\n     about    prohibition     of     the
\n     consumption  except  for  medicinal
\n     purposes of intoxicating drinks and
\n     of drugs  which  are  injurious  to
\n     health.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  Of the  aforesaid provisions,  the one finding place in
\nArticle 24  has been  a fundamental  right ever\t since\t28th
\nJanuary, 1950.\tArticle 45  too\t has  been  raised  to\thigh
\npedestal  by   Unni  Krishnan,\twhich  was  decided  on\t 4th
\nFebruary, 1993.\t Though other articles are part of directive
\nprinciples, there  are fundamental  in the governance of our
\ncountry and it is the duty of all the organs of the State (a
\nla Article  37) to  apply these principles. Judiciary, being
\nalso one  of the three principal organs of the State, has to
\nkeep the  same in mind when called upon to decide matters of
\ngreat  public  importance.  Abolition  of  child  labour  is
\ndefinitely  a\tmatter\t of   great   public   concern\t and
\nsignificance.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  International commitment\n<\/p>\n
15.  It would  be apposite  to apprise\tourselves also about
\nour commitment\tto world  community. For the case at hand it
\nwould  be  enough  to  note  that  India  has  accepted\t the
\nConvention on  the Rights  of the Child, which was concluded
\nby the\tUN General  Assembly on\t 20th November,\t 1989.\tThis
\nConvention affirms  that children’s  right  require  special
\nprotection and it aims, not only to provide such protection,
\nbut  also  to  ensure  the  continuous\timprovement  in\t the
\nsituation of  children all  over the world, as well as their
\ndevelopment  and   education  in  conditions  of  peace\t and
\nsecurity. Thus, the Convection not only protects the child’s
\ncivil and  political right,  but also  extends protection to
\nchild’s economic, social, cultural and humanitarian rights.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The Government  of India  deposited its  instrument  of
\naccession tot he above-mentioned conventions on December 11,
\n1992  with   the  United  Nation’s  Secretary-General.\tThat
\ninstrument contains the following declaration
\n     “While  fully  subscribing\t to  the
\n     objectives\t and   purposes\t of  the
\n     Convention, realising  that certain
\n     of the  rights of the child, namely
\n     those pertaining  to the  economic,
\n     social and cultural rights can only
\n     be progressively implemented in the
\n     developing\t countries,  subject  to
\n     the extent\t of available  resources
\n     and   within   the\t  framework   of
\n     international\t   co-operation;<\/p>\n
     recognising that  the child  has to
\n     be protected  from exploitation  of
\n     all   forms    including\teconomic
\n     exploitation;  nothing   that   for
\n     several   reasons\t  children    of
\n     different ages  do work  in  India;\n<\/p>\n
     having prescribed\tminimum ages for
\n     employment in hazardous occupations
\n     and in  certain other areas; having
\n     made     regulatory      provisions
\n     regarding hours  and conditions  of
\n     employment; and being aware that it
\n     is\t not  practical\t immediately  to
\n     prescribe\t  minimum    ages    for
\n     admission to each and every area of
\n     employment in  India-the Government
\n     of\t  India\t  undertakes   to   take
\n     measures to progressively implement
\n     the  provisions   of  Article   32,
\n     particularly  paragraph   2(a),  in
\n     accordance\t  with\t  its\tnational
\n     legislation      and\trelevant
\n     international instruments\tto which
\n     it is a State Party.”\n<\/p>\n
17.  Article 32\t of which  mention  has\t been  made  in\t the
\ninstrument of accession reads as below :\n<\/p>\n
     “1.  States Parties  recognise  the
\n\t  right\t of   the  child  to  be
\n\t  protected    from\teconomic
\n\t  exploitation\t   and\t    from
\n\t  performing any  work\tthat  is
\n\t  likely to  be hazardous  or to
\n\t  interfere  with   the\t child’s
\n\t  education, or to be harmful to
\n\t  the\t child’s    health    or
\n\t  physical,  mental,  spiritual,
\n\t  moral or social development.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  States  Parties   shall   take
\n\t  legislative,\t administrative,
\n\t  social     and     educational
\n\t  measures   to\t   ensure    the
\n\t  implementation of  the present
\n\t  article.  To\t this  end,  and
\n\t  having regard\t to the relevant
\n\t  provisions\t  of\t   other
\n\t  international\t    instruments,
\n\t  States   Parties    shall   in
\n\t  particular :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  Provide for  a minimum  age or
\n     minimum  ages   for  admission   to
\n     employment’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  Provide    for     appropriate
\n     regulation\t  of   the   hours   and
\n     conditions of employment;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  Provide    for     appropriate
\n     penalties\tor  other  sanctions  to
\n     ensure the effective enforcement of
\n     the present article.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Statutory provisions\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.  We may  now note  as to how the problem of child labour
\nhas been  viewed by  our policy makers and what efforts have
\nbeen made  to take  care of  this evil.\t We have  shown\t our
\nconcern in  this sphere\t ever since the International Labour
\nOrganisation, set  up in  1919 under  the League of Nations,
\nhad felt  that there  should be\t international guidelines by
\nwhich the  employment of  children under a certain age could
\nbe regulated  in  industrial  undertakings.  It,  therefore,
\nsuggested that the minimum age of work be 12 years. The same
\nrequired ratification  by the  Government of  British India;
\nand during the Legislative Assembly debates, the question of
\nraising the  minimum age  from 9  t 12\tyears had  created a
\nfurore. The  Hon’ble Sir  Thomas Holland  had  said  in\t the
\nLegislative Assembly  in February  1921 that  if the minimum
\nage were raise, the same would upset the organisational set-
\nup of  most textile mills which were the principal employees
\nof children.  On the  other hand,  there were those who felt
\nthat the  answer tot  eh problem  lay in  compulsory primary
\neducation. The\tHouse ultimately was divided with 32 members
\nvoting for  raising the\t minimum age  to 12  and  40  voting
\nagainst it.  The Assembly,  therefore,\trecommended  to\t the
\nGovernor-General-in-Council that the Draft Convention should
\nbe ratified with certain observation.\n<\/p>\n
19.  May  it   be  stated   that  the  International  Labour
\nOrganisation has  been playing\tan  important  role  in\t the
\nprocess of  gradual  elimination  of  child  labour  and  to
\nprotect child  from industrial\texploitation. It has focused
\nfive main issues :-\n<\/p>\n
1.   Prohibition of children labour.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Protecting child labour at work.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Attacking the basic causes of child labour.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Helping children to adopt to future work.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Protecting the children of working parents.\n<\/p>\n
     Till now  18 Conventions  and 16  recommendations\thave
\nbeen adopted  by the ILO in the interest of working children
\nall over the world.\n<\/p>\n
20.  To continue  our narration of steps taken here, a Royal
\nCommission on  Labour came  to be  established\tin  1929  to
\ninquire into  various matters  relating to  labour  in\tthis
\ncountry. The report came to be finalised in 1931. It brought
\nto light many inequities and shocking conditions under which
\nchildren worked.  The Commission  had examined to conditions
\nof child  labour in  different industries and had found that
\nchildren had  been obliged  to work  any number of hours per
\nday as\trequired by  their masters.  It was  also found that
\nthey were subject to corporal punishment. The Commission had
\nfelt great  concern at the placing of children by parents to
\nemployers in  return for  small sums  of money;\t and as this
\nsystem was  found to be indefensible it recommended that any
\nbond placing a child should be regarded as void.\n<\/p>\n
21.  The  recommendations  of  the  Commission\tcame  to  be
\ndiscussed in  the  Legislative\tAssembly  and  the  Children
\n(Pleading of  Labour) Act, 1933 came to be passed, which may
\nbe said\t to be\tthe first  statutory enactment\tdealing with
\nchild labour. Many statutes came to be passed thereafter. As
\non today,  the following legislative enactments are in force
\nprohibiting  employment\t  of  child   labours  in  different
\noccupations :\n<\/p>\n
     (i)  Section 67  of Factories  Act,
\n     1948:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Prohibition of  employment of
\n     young children-  No child\twho  has
\n     not completed  his fourteenth  year
\n     shall be  required\t or  allowed  to
\n     work in any factory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  Section   24\t of   Plantation
\n     Labour Act, 1951:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “No\tchild\t who   has   not
\n     completed his twelfth year shall be
\n     required or  allowed to work in any
\n     plantation”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)  Section   109  of\tMerchant
\n     Shipping Act, 1951:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “No person under fifteen years
\n     of age  shall be engaged or carried
\n     to sea  to work  in any capacity in
\n     any ship, except-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  in a\tschool ship, or training
\n     ship,  in\t accordance   with   the
\n     prescribed conditions; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  in a ship in which all persons
\n     employed are members of one family;
\n     or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  in a\thome-trade ship\t of less
\n     than two hundred tons gross; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  where such  person  is  to  be
\n     employed on  nominal wages and will
\n     be in  the charge\tof his father or
\n     other adult near male relative.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iv) Section  45\tof  Mines   Act,
\n     1952:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  “No child shall be employed in
\n     any mine,\tnor shall  any child  be
\n     allowed to\t be present  in any part
\n     of a  mine which is below ground or
\n     in any (open cast working) in which
\n     any  mining   operation  is   being
\n     carried on.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  After such date as the Central
\n     Government may,  by notification in
\n     the Official  Gazette,  appoint  in
\n     this  behalf,  no\tchild  shall  be
\n     allowed to\t be present  in any part
\n     of a  mine above  ground where  any
\n     operation\t connected    with    or
\n     incidental\t   to\t any\tminining
\n     operation is being carried on.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (v)  Section 21  of Motor Transport
\n     Workers Act, 1961:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “No child shall be required or
\n     allowed to\t work in any capacity in
\n     any motor transport undertaking.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vi) Section  3 of Apprentices Act,
\n     1961:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Qualifications for being engaged as
\n     an apprentice:-  A person shall not
\n     be qualified  for being  engaged as
\n     an\t   apprentice\t  to\t undergo
\n     apprenticeship  training\tin   any
\n     designated trade, unless he-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  is  not   less  than\tfourteen
\n     years of age, and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  satisfies  such  standards  of
\n     education and  physical fitness  as
\n     may be prescribed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided that  different  standards
\n     may be  prescribed in  relation  to
\n     apprenticeship\ttraining      in
\n     different designated trades and for
\n     different\t     categories\t      of
\n     apprentices.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (vii) Section 24 of Beedi and Cigar
\n     Workers (Conditions  of  Employment
\n     Act, 1966:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Prohibition of  employment of
\n     children-No child shall be required
\n     or\t  allowed   to\t work\tin   any
\n     industrial premises.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (viii)  Child  Labour  (Prohibition
\n     and Regulation)  Act, 1986. (Act 61
\n     of 1986).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ix) Shops\t     and      Commercial
\n     Establishment Acts\t under different
\n     nomenclatures in various States.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
22.  The aforesaid  shows that\tthe legislature has strongly
\ndesired prohibition  of child  labour. Act 61 of 1986 is, ex
\nfacie, a  bold step.  The provisions of this Act, other than
\nPart III,  came into  force at once and for Part III to come
\ninto force,  a notification  by the  Central  Government  is
\nvisualised by  section 1(3), which notification covering all
\nclasses of  establishments throughout the territory of India
\nwas issued on May 26, 1993.\n<\/p>\n
23.  Section 3\tof this\t Act has  prohibited  employment  of
\nchildren in certain occupations and processes. Part A of the
\nSchedule to the Act contains the names of the occupations in
\nwhich no  child can be employed or permitted to work; and in
\nPara B\tnames on some processes have been mentioned in which
\nno child  can be  employed or permitted to work. It would be
\nprofitable to quote Parts A and B of the Schedule which read
\nas below:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   Part A
\n\t\t\tOccupations
\n     Any occupation connected with –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  transport of passengers, goods or mails by railway;
\n(2)  cinder picking,  clearing of  an  ash  pit\t of-building
\n     operation in the railway premises;\n<\/p>\n
(3)  work in  a catering  establishment at a railway station
\n     involving\tthe  movement  of  a  vendor  or  any  other
\n     employee of  the establishment  from  one\tplatform  to
\n     another or into or out of a moving train;\n<\/p>\n
(4)  work relating  to the construction of a railway station
\n     or with any other work where such work is done in close
\n     proximity to or between the railway lines; and
\n(5)  a port authority within the limits of any port.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  Part B:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t Processes
\n(1)  Bidi-making.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Carpet-weaving.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Cement manufacture, including bagging of cement.
\n(4)  Cloth printing, dyeing and weaving.
\n(5)  Manufacture of matches, explosives and fire-works.
\n(6)  Mica-cutting and splitting.\n<\/p>\n
(7)  Shellac manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
(8)  Soap manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
(9)  Tanning.\n<\/p>\n
(10) Wool-cleaning.\n<\/p>\n
(11) Building and construction industry.\n<\/p>\n
24.  Section 14\t of the Act has provided for punishment upto
\n1  year\t  (minimum  being   3  months)\tor  with  find\tupto
\nRs.20,000\/- (minimum  being ten\t thousand) or  with both, to
\none  who   employs  or\t permits  any\tchild  to   work  in
\ncontravention of  provisions in\t section 3.  Even so,  it is
\ncommon\texperience   that  child   labour  continues  to  be
\nemployed. As  to why  this has\thappened despite  the Act of
\n1986, has come to be discussed by Neera Burra, in her afore-
\nmentioned book\tat pages  246 to  230 o the 1995 edition. It
\nhas  been   first  pointed  out\t that  the  occupations\t and
\nprocesses  dealt  by  the  Act\tare  same  about  which\t the
\nreplealed statute  (Employment of  Children Act,  1938)\t had
\nmentioned, except  that in  Part B,  one  process  has\tbeen
\nadded- the  same being “building and construction industry”.
\nAccording to  Neera, there  are a number of loopholes in the
\nAct which has made it “completely ineffective instrument for
\nthe removal  of children  working in  industry”. One  of the
\nclear loopholes\t mentioned is  that children can continue to
\nwork if\t they are  a part  of family  of labour.  It is\t not
\nnecessary for  our purpose  to\tgo  into  other\t infirmities
\npointed out. Nonetheless, it deserves to be pointed out that
\nthe Act\t does not  use the  word “hazardous”  anywhere,\t the
\nimplication of which is the children may continue to work in
\nthose processes\t not involving chemicals. Neera has tried to
\nshow how  impracticable and  unrealistic it  is\t to  draw  a
\ndistinction between hazardous and non-hazardous processes in
\na particular  industry. The suggestion given is that what is
\nrequired is  to list  the whole industry as banned for child
\nlabour, which would make the task of enforcement simpler and
\nstrategies of evasion more difficult.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      Failure : causes\n<\/p>\n
25.  We have,  therefore, to  see as to why is it that child
\nlabour\thas   continued\t despite   the\taforesaid  statutory
\nenactments. This  has been  a subject  of study\t by  a\tgood
\nnumber of  authors. It would be enough to note what has been
\npointed\t out   in  “Indian   Child  Labour”   by  Dr.\tJ.C.
\nKulshreshtha. This  aspect has\tbeen dealt  in\tChapter\t II.
\nAccording to  the author,  the causes  of failure  are : (1)
\npoverty; (2)  low wages\t of the adult; (3) unemployment; (4)
\nabsence of  schemes for\t family allowance;  (5) migration to
\nurban areas;  (6) large families; (7) children being cheaply
\navailable; (8)\tnon-existence of  provisions for  compulsory
\neducation; (9) illiteracy and ignorance of parents; and (10)
\ntraditional attitudes.\tNazir Ahmad  Shah has also expressed
\nsimilar views  in his  book “Child  Labour in India”. In the
\narticle at  pages 65  to 68 of 1993(3) SCJ (Journal Section)
\ntitled “Causes\tof  the\t exploitation  of  child  labour  in
\nIndia”, Dr.  Amar  Singh  and  Raghuvinder  Singh,  who\t are
\nattached to Himachal Pradesh University, have taken the same
\nviews.\n<\/p>\n
26.  Of the  aforesaid causes,\tit  seems  to  us  that\t the
\npoverty is  basic reason  which compels\t parents of a child,
\ndespite their  unwillingness, to get it employed. The Survey
\nReport of the Ministry of Labour (supra) had also so stated.
\nOtherwise, no  parents, specially no mother, would like that
\na tender  aged child should toil in a factory in a difficult
\ncondition, instead  of it enjoying its childhood at home the
\npaternal gaze.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tWhat to do?\n<\/p>\n
27.  It may  be that  the problem  would be taken care of to
\nsome extent  by insisting  on compulsory  education. Indeed,
\nNeera thinks  that if  there  is  at  all  a  blueprint\t for
\ntackling the  problem of child labour, it is education. Even
\nif it  were to\tbe so,\tthe child of a poor parent would not
\nreceive education,  if per  force it has to earn to make the
\nfamily meet  both the  ends. therefore, unless the family is
\nassured of  income allude,  problem of\tchild  labour  would
\nhardly get  solved; and\t it is this vital question which has
\nremained almost\t unattended. We\t are, however,\tof the\tview
\nthat till  an alternative  income is  assured to the family,
\nthe question  of abolition  of\tchild  labour  would  really
\nremain a will-o’-the wisp. Now, if employment of child below
\nthat age  of 14\t is a  constitutional indication  insofar as
\nwork in any factory or mine or engagement in other hazardous
\nwork, and  if it  has to be seen that all children are given
\neducation till\tthe age\t of 14 years in view of this being a
\nfundamental right  now, and  if the wish embodied in Article
\n39(e) that  the tender\tage of\tchildren is  not abused\t and
\ncitizens are  not forced  by  economic\tnecessity  to  enter
\navocation unsuited  to their  age, and if children are to be
\ngiven opportunities  and facilities  to develop in a healthy
\nmanner and childhood is to be protected against exploitation
\nas visualised  by Article  39(f), it  seems to\tus that\t the
\nleast  we   ought  to  do  is  see  to\tthe  fulfillment  of
\nlegislative intendment\tbehind enactment of the Child Labour
\n(Prohibition and  Regulation)  Act,  1986.  Taking  guidance
\ntherefrom, we  are of  the view\t that the offending employer
\nmust be\t asked to  pay compensation for every child employed
\nin contravention  of the  provisions of\t the Act  a  sum  of
\nRs.20,000\/-;  and   the\t Inspectors,  whose  appointment  is
\nvisualised by  section 17  to  secure  compliance  with\t the
\nprovisions of  the Act,\t should do  this job. The inspectors
\nappointed under\t section 17  would see\tthat for  each child
\nemployed in  violation of  the provisions  of the  Act,\t the
\nconcerned employer  pays  Rs.20,000\/-  which  sum  could  be
\ndeposited  in\ta  fund\t  to  be   known  as   Child  Labour
\nRehabilitation-cum-Welfare  Fund.   The\t liability   of\t the
\nemployer  would\t not  cease  even  if  he  would  desire  to
\ndisengage the  child presently employed. It would perhaps be
\nappropriate to\thave such a fund district wise or area wise.
\nThe fund  so generated\tshall form corpus whose income shall
\nbe used\t only for  the concerned child. The quantum could be
\nthe income  earned on the corpus deposited qua the child. To
\ngenerate greater  income, fund\tcan  be\t deposited  in\thigh
\nyielding scheme\t of any\t nationalised bank  or other  public
\nbody.\n<\/p>\n
28.  As the aforesaid income could not be enough to dissuade
\nthe parent\/guardian  to seek  employment of  the child,\t the
\nState  owes   a\t duty  to  come\t forward  to  discharge\t its
\nobligation in  this regard.  After all,\t the  aforementioned
\nconstitutional provisions  have to  be\timplemented  by\t the
\nappropriate Government, which expression has been defined in
\nsection\t 2(i)\tof  the\t  Act  to   mean,  in\trelation  to
\nestablishment under the control of the Central Government or
\na railway  administration or  a major  port of a mine or oil
\nfield, the  Central Government,\t and in all other cases, the
\nState Government.\n<\/p>\n
29.  Now, strictly  speaking a\tstrong case exists to invoke
\nthe and\t of an\tArticle 41 of the Constitution regarding the
\nright to  work and to give meaning to what has been provided
\nin Article  47 relating\t to raising of standard of living of
\nthe population,\t and Articles  39(e) and (f) as to non-abuse
\nof tender  age of  children  and  giving  opportunities\t and
\nfacilities to  them to develop in healthy manner, for asking
\nthe State  to see  that an adult member of the family, whose
\nchild is  in employment\t in a  factory or a mine or in other
\nhazardous work,\t gets a\t job anywhere, in lieu of the child.
\nThis would  also see  the fulfillment  of the wish contained
\ndin Article  41 after  about half  a century of its being in
\nthe paramount  parchment, like\tprimary education desired by
\nArticle 45,  having been  given the  status  of\t fundamental
\nright by the decision in Unni Krishnan. We are, however, not
\nasking\tthe  State  at\tthis  stage  to\t ensure\t alternative
\nemployment in  every case  covered by Article 24, as Article
\n41 speaks  about right\tto work\t “within the  limits of\t the
\neconomic capacity  and development  of the  State”. The very
\nlarge number  of child-labour  in the  aforesaid occupations
\nwould require  giving of job to very large number of adults,
\nif we  were to\task the\t appropriate  Government  to  assure
\nalternative employment in every case, which would strain the
\nresources of  the State, in case it would not have been able
\nto secure job for an adult in a private sector establishment
\nor, for\t that matter, in a public sector organisation. ,
\nwe are\tnot  issuing  any  direction  to  do  so  presently.
\nInstead, we  leave the\tmatter\tto  be\tsorted\tout  by\t the
\nappropriate Government. In those cases where it would not be
\npossible to  provide job as above-mentioned, the appropriate
\nGovernment would,  as its contribution\/grant, deposit in the
\naforesaid Fund\ta sum  of Rs.5,000\/- for each child employed
\nin a factory or mine or in any other hazardous employment.\n<\/p>\n
30.  The aforesaid  would either  see an  adult (whose\tname
\nwould be  suggested by\tthe parent\/guardian of the concerned
\nchild) getting\ta job  in lieu of the child, or deposit of a
\nsum of\tRs.25,000\/- in\tthe Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-
\nWelfare Fund.  In case\tof getting  employment for an adult,
\nthe parent\/guardian  shall have\t to see\t that his  child  is
\nspared from the requirement to do the job, as an alternative
\nsource of income would have become available to him.\n<\/p>\n
31.  To give  shape to\tthe aforesaid directions, we require
\nthe concerned States to do the following :-
\n(1)  A survey  would be\t made of the aforesaid type of child
\nlabour which  would be\tcompleted  within  six\tmonths\tfrom
\ntoday.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  to start  with, work  could be taken up regarding those
\nemployment which  have been  mentioned in  Article 24, which
\nmay be\tregarded as  core sector,  to  determine  which\t the
\nhazardous  aspect  of  the  employment\twould  be  taken  as
\ncriterion. The\tmost hazardous\temployment may rank first in
\npriority, to be followed by comparatively less hazardous and
\nso on.\tIt may\tbe mentioned  here that\t the National  Child
\nLabour Policy  as announced  by the  Government of India has
\nalready identified  some industries  for priority action and
\nthe industries to identified are as below :-\n<\/p>\n
     The match industry in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu
\n     The diamond polishing industry in Surat, Gujarat.
\n     The precious stone polishing industry in Jaipur,
\n\t\t\t\t\t     Rajasthan.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The glass industry in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.
\n     The brass-ware industry in Mirzapur-Bhadohi,
\n\t\t\t\t\tUttar Pradesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The lock-making industry in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
\n     The state industry in Markapur, Andhra Pradesh.
\n     The slate industry in Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(3)  The employment  to be  given as per our direction could
\nbe dovetailed  to other\t assured employment.  On this  being
\ndone, it  is apparent  that our\t direction would not require
\ngeneration of much additional employment.
\n(4)  The employment  so given  could as well be the industry
\nwhere the  child is employed, a public undertaking and would
\nbe manual  in nature  inasmuch as the child in question must
\nbe engaged  in doing  manual work.  The understanding chosen
\nfor employment shall be one which is nearest to the place of
\nresidence of the family.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  In those  cases where  alternative employment would not
\nbe made\t available as  aforesaid, the parent\/guardian of the
\nconcerned child\t would be  paid the  income which  would  be
\nearned on  the corpus,\twhich would  be a sum of Rs.85,000\/-
\nfor each child, every month. The employment given or payment
\nmade would  cease to  be operative if the child would not be
\nsent by the parent\/guardian for education.
\n(6)  On discontinuation\t of the employment of the child, his
\neducation would\t be assured  in suitable  institution with a
\nview to make it a better citizen. It may be pointed out that
\nArticle 45  mandates compulsory\t education for\tall children
\nuntil they complete the age of 14 years; it is also required
\nto be  free. It\t would be  the duty of the Inspectors to see
\nthat this call of the Constitution is carried out.
\n(7)  A district\t could be the unit of collection so that the
\nexecutive head\tof the\tdistrict keeps a watchful eve on the
\nwork of the Inspectors. Further, in view of the magnitude of
\nthe task,  a separate  cell in\tthe Labour Department of the
\nappropriate Government\twould be  created. Monitoring of the
\nscheme would  also be  necessary and  the Secretary  of\t the
\nDepartment could perhaps do this work. Overall monitoring by
\nthe Ministry  of  Labour.  Government  of  India,  would  be
\nbeneficial and worthwhile.\n<\/p>\n
(8)  The Secretary  to the Ministry of Labour, Government of
\nIndia would  apprise this  Court within\t one year  of  today
\nabout  the   compliance\t of  aforesaid\tdirections.  If\t the
\npetitioner would  need any  further of\tother order  in\t the
\nlight of  the compliance  report, it would be open to him to
\ndo so.\n<\/p>\n
(9)  We should\talso like  to observe that on the directions
\ngiven being  carried out,  penal provision  contained in the
\naforenoted 1936\t Act would  be used  where employment  of  a
\nchild labour, prohibited by the Act, would be found.
\n(10) Insofar as\t the non-hazardous  jobs are  concerned, the
\nInspector shall\t have to  see that  the working hours of the
\nchild are  not more  than four\tto six\thours a\t day and  it
\nreceives education at least for two hours each day. It would
\nalso be\t see that  the entire  cost of education is borne by
\nthe employer.\n<\/p>\n
32.  The task is big, but not as to prove either unwieldy or
\nburdensome. The\t financial implication\twould be  such as to
\nprove a damper, because the money after all would be used to
\nbuild up better India. In this context, it is worth pointing
\nout that  covertly as such has not stood in the way of other
\ndeveloping countries  from taking  care of  child labour. It
\nhas been  pointed out  by Myron\t Weiner (at  page 4  of 1991
\nEdition) of his book “The Child and the State in India” that
\nIndia is  a significant exception to the global trend toward
\nthe removal  of children  from\tthe  labour  force  and\t the
\nestablishment  of   compulsory,\t universal   primary  school
\neducation, as  many countries  of Africa like Zambia, Ghana,
\nIvory Coast,  Libya, Zambia,  Zimbabwe, with  income  levels
\nlower than  India, have\t done better  in these matters. This
\nshows that has caused the problem of child labour to persist
\nhere is\t really not  dearth of\tresources, but\tlack of real
\nzeal. Let  this not  continue, Let  us all  put our head and
\nefforts together  and assist  the child\t for  its  good\t and
\ngreater good of the country.\n<\/p>\n
33.  The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
34.  We part  with the\tfond hope  that the closing years of
\nthe twentieth  century would see us keeping the promise made
\nto our\tchildren by  our constitution  about a\thalf-century
\nago. Let the child of twenty-first century find himself into
\nthat  “heaven\tof  freedom”  of  which\t our  poet  laureate
\nRabindranath Tagore has spoken in Gitanjali.\n<\/p>\n
35.  Let a  copy of  this judgment  is to  be sent  to Chief
\nSecretaries  of\t  all  the   State  Governments\t  and  union
\nTerritories; so\t also to  the Secretary, Ministry of Labour,
\nGovernment of  India for  their information  and  doing\t the
\nneedful.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 Author: Hansaria Bench: Kuldip Singh, B.L. Hansaria, S.B. Majmudar PETITIONER: M.C. MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/12\/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA, S.B. MAJMUDAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\"},\"wordCount\":6779,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\",\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996","datePublished":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996"},"wordCount":6779,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996","name":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-01T13:16:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-c-mehta-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-on-10-december-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.C. Mehta vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 10 December, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}