In M.C. MEHTA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (SIVAKASI CASE), (1996) 6 SCC 756, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines on:
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D.
1. In M.C. Mehta v. State of TN (Sivakasi Case, 1996), the Supreme Court addressed CHILD LABOUR particularly in hazardous industries like the Sivakasi fireworks industry.
2. The Court directed:
3. (i) IDENTIFICATION of all children working in hazardous industries;
4. (ii) IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL from hazardous work;
5. (iii) EDUCATION until age 14 in alternative schools;
6. (iv) Creation of CHILD LABOUR REHABILITATION WELFARE FUND — employer contributes Rs 20,000 per child;
7. (v) GOVERNMENT contributes Rs 5,000 per child;
8. (vi) Alternative employment for adult relative of child.
9. The judgment built on Article 24 of the Constitution (no children below 14 in factories/mines/hazardous employment).
10. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: International HR Treaties + Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence — M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (Sivakasi Case), (1996) 6 SCC 756_
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