In BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1984 SC 802, the Supreme Court held that:
Abonded labour is a private matter (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802)
Bbonded labour is not justiciable (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802)
CBONDED LABOUR exists in violation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution; State has constitutional duty to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded labourers under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976
Dbonded labour is permitted in agriculture (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802) (cf. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802)
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: C. BONDED LABOUR exists in violation of Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution; State has constitutional duty to identify, release, and rehabilitate bonded labourers under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976
1. In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UoI (1984), the Supreme Court considered bonded labour in stone quarries of Faridabad, Haryana.
2. The Court held: BONDED LABOUR violates Articles 21 (right to life with dignity) and 23 (prohibition of forced labour).
3. The Court directed: (i) identification and release of bonded labourers; (ii) rehabilitation under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976; (iii) State's positive duty to ensure compliance.
4. The case established the doctrine of 'positive duties' on State under Article 21.
5. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: International HR Treaties + Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence — Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802_
Related questions
The RIGHT TO FOOD under ICESCR Article 11 was elaborated in CESCR General Comment No. 12 (Article 13 ICESCR recognises the right to EDUCATION. Primary education shall be:Section 11A NHRC complaints are admitted on grounds of:The KAMPALA AMENDMENTS to the Rome Statute (2010) activated the CRIME OF AGGRESSION jurisdThe DOCTRINE OF EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION of HUMAN RIGHTS treaties (per the ICJ Wall AThe PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESSIVE REALIZATION in ICESCR (Article 2(1)) is balanced by the doctrIn NUREMBERG TRIALS 1945-46, the International Military Tribunal articulated the principleArticle 41 ICCPR provides for INTER-STATE COMPLAINTS — a State Party may complain to the H