case law bandhua mukti morcha vs union of india

ppt on case law bandhua mukti morcha vs union of india constitutional law 2

1. CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW II
PSDA


Submitted to:
Ms. Farah Hayat
(Professor)
Submitted by:
Sneha Singh
BBA LLB B
Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v.
Union of India, 1984 AIR 802

TOPIC::

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS


➢CITATION
➢NAMES OF THE PARTIES
➢JUDGES
➢INTRODUCTION
➢FACTS
➢ISSUES
➢ARGUMENTS RAISED BY
PETITIONER



➢ARGUMENTS RAISED
BY RESPONDENT
➢JUDGMENT
➢ANALYSIS
➢CONCLUSION

3. CITATION
(1984) 3 SCC 161.
NAMES OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner: Bandhua Mukti Morcha
Respondent: Union of India and others
JUDGES
Justice N. Bhagwati; Justice S. Pathak;
Justice Amarnath Sen.









4. INTRODUCTIO
N
Judicial activism that started majorly in 1970s played a major role in
the way the Indian Judiciary is functioning today.
Even the attitude of citizens has significantly changed. Citizens
have now become well equipped with the power to file a case
representing some other victims.
This, in fact, did make people responsible.
However, these days, several frivolous PILs are being filed which
only increase the time and burden on the Judiciary.

The following case, Bandhua Mukti Morcha is one of the historic
judgments in the field of Public Interest Litigation. This takes us
back to that era when a simple letter to an individual SC Judge has
been referred to a Bench and considered as a PIL case file in the
interest of justice.
The case deals with bonded labour, infringement of their basic
human rights and their appalling lives.

5. FACTS
■Bandhua Mukti Morcha (Bonded Labour Liberation Front), a
non-governmental organisation addressed a letter to a Judge of
Supreme Court urging to release the bonded labourers (many of
them being migrant labourers) from two stone quarries in
Faridabad district. They were working under inhuman
conditions, many of them being bonded labourers who have not
given consent to this type of employment.
■The petitioner also affixed the thumb impressions of the said
bonded labourers in the given letter.
■The Supreme Court, finding some substance in the matter,
considered it as a writ petition, issued notice to the respective
stone quarries and appointed two advocates as Commissioners
to inquire in the matter.

6. ■The Commissioners visited the quarries, interviewed each of
the persons mentioned in the letter to find out whether they
were willingly working and how their conditions in the stone
quarry are.
■The Commission submitted the report confirming the
allegations made in the letter.
■The Court then directed the copies of the report to all the
stone crushers who were the Respondents so that they have
an opportunity to file their reply.
■It further directed that the workmen whose names were
listed in the writ petition and the report would be free to go
anywhere that they liked. The Court also appointed Dr.
Patwardhan of IIT to carry out a socio-legal investigation in
the given matter

7. ISSUES
1.Whether a letter personally addressed to a Judge be
considered as a writ petition:
■as per the definition of Article 32 of the
Constitution?
■in the absence of a verified petition?
2.Does Court have power to appoint a Commission to
make a report to Court under the scope of Article
32?
3.Whether the petition attracted Article 32 as no basic
fundamental rights have been infringed of the
workmen.

8. ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PETITIONER

•As it is evident from the factual scenario of the case
that Hon’ble Court treated the letter of the petitioner
as the Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

•In the said letter the petitioner organisation while
acting pro bono publico addressed the vulnerability of
the workers in stone quarries and reported about
non-fulfilment of obligations of the respondent.

•However, the petitioner had not argued on the legal
issues framed by the court from legal point of view.

9. ARGUMENTS RAISED BY
RESPONDENTS

After the reports of were submitted to answerable respondents, i.e., Central Govt., Govt.
of Haryana, owners responded to the issues in the following manner:
•That, the present petition is not maintainable as neither the petitioner has locus
standi nor a letter which is not verified can be treated as writ petition within the
meaning of Article 32.
•Even if this court considers the allegations made in the letter are to be true, then also
petition cannot be maintained before this court as there was no violation of
Fundamental Rights neither of petitioner nor of workers.
•Appointing Commission in the present matter is ultra vires the scope and extent of
Order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Moreover, reports which are
submitted says only about ex parte opinion, which has not been cross examined and
hence it does not bear any evidentiary value with it.
•Provision of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 cannot be attracted as
the workers are required to proof enough evidence that they have been forced to do
their work and are not allowed to leave the premise of their work at their volition. In
the present case there is nothing which can be considered as conclusive evidence to
prove the bondage of workmen.

10. JUDGEMENT


●The government of Haryana within 6 weeks of the judgement shall
constitute a vigilance committee in each division of district to ensure
compliance under Section 13 of the Bonded Labour Act, 1976.
●The government of Haryana will appoint a district magistrate to
identify the bonded labour as per the law/
●The state government also has to take the help of NGOs and other
voluntary agencies to ensure the implementation of the Bonded
Labour Act, 1976
●The government of Haryana, within 3 month of the judgement has to
re-habitat the bonded labourers.
●Both the Central and State Government together must ensure the
implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
●The concern offices from the Central government has to conduct
surprise visits at least once a week.
●The Central Board of Workers education will organise camps often to
educate the workers about their rights and benefits provided by law.

11. ANALYSIS
➔The ruling of the Supreme Court was based on logic.
➔The supreme court can modify the constitution to enforce a
constitutional right.
➔The supreme court's rulings were crucial in preventing the
country's bonded worker regime from becoming established. The
formation of the monitoring committee is just as important as its
role in identifying bonded workers.
➔As a result, in the interests of justice, it should be left to the court
to decide whether or not to treat a letter or any other form of
communication as a writ petition.
➔ The government, on the other hand, contends that forced labour
does not fall under the definition of bonded labour as specified by
the Bonded Worker System (Abolition) Act, 1976 in some
situations. Forced and the bonded worker is an embarrassment to
our civilization. The fact that bonded worker is no longer legal.

12. Conclusion
The Supreme Court's three-judge panel, which included Justice Bhagwati,
Justice Sen, and Justice Pathak, delivered a decision that contradicted my
views. Treating a letter as if it were a writ was accurate, as was acting on the
problem right away.

Furthermore, filing the lawsuit in the aggrieved party's palace by the other
party's right because the aggrieved party lacks the means to file and contest
their case. They couldn't afford the additional burden of paying legal fees
because they were already sacrificing to survive in this country.
Also, whether the instruction to the concerned central officers to check the
situation of labour in the mines or stone quarries once a week and to the
inspector to monitor the situation of labour in the mines every night was
permissible. The establishment of a separate committee within the central
labour ministry to monitor the execution of federal labour rules including the
Mines Act and the Vocational Training Act, among others. Finally, the final
decision can be said to be appropriate and reasonable for the case.

13. Thankyou