Article 23 of the indian constitution

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution, situated within the “Right against Exploitation,” is a powerful declaration of human dignity. It is a direct assault on the traditional socio-economic evils of trafficking and forced labour that had plagued Indian society for centuries. This provision is notable for its wide scope, as it protects not only citizens but all persons within the territory of India, and its prohibition is enforceable against both the State and private individuals.¹ Article 23 aims to secure the liberty of individuals by criminalizing the commodification of human beings and ensuring that labour is a voluntary contract, not an instrument of servitude.

The Two-Fold Prohibition: A Clause-by-Clause Analysis

Article 23 is structured into two distinct clauses, one laying down a comprehensive prohibition and the other providing a narrow exception for the State.³

Clause (1): A Ban on Trafficking, ‘Begar’, and Forced Labour

The first clause is the heart of the article:

“(1) Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”⁵

This clause can be broken down into three core prohibitions:

1. Traffic in Human Beings: This term encompasses a wide range of exploitative practices.⁶ It includes not just the buying and selling of human beings as goods (slavery) but also the immoral trafficking of women and children for prostitution, the practice of devadasis (dedicating girls to temples for immoral purposes), and any form of trade in human flesh. To enforce this, Parliament has enacted laws like the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.⁷

    

2. ‘Begar’: This is a specific form of forced labour with deep roots in India’s feudal past. ‘Begar’ refers to the practice of compelling a person to work against their will without any payment.⁸ It was a system where landlords or government officials could command the services of their tenants or subjects for free. Article 23 unequivocally abolishes this practice.⁹

    

3. “Other Similar Forms of Forced Labour”: This is a broad, catch-all phrase that extends the prohibition beyond ‘begar’.¹⁰ The Supreme Court, in a landmark interpretation, has held that “forced labour” does not necessarily mean physical force or coercion.¹¹ It can also arise from economic compulsion.

    

The most significant judicial expansion of this concept came in the case of People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), famously known as the Asiad Workers case.¹² The case involved the payment of wages below the statutory minimum wage to workers engaged in the construction projects for the 1982 Asian Games in Delhi. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, delivering the judgment, argued that paying less than the minimum wage also amounts to forced labour under Article 23. He reasoned that a person who agrees to work for less than the minimum wage does so not out of free will but due to economic compulsion arising from poverty and hunger. This “economic force” that compels a person to provide labour for remuneration less than the statutory minimum is a form of forced labour.

This interpretation transformed Article 23 from a mere prohibition against physical servitude into a powerful tool for ensuring economic justice and fair labour practices. The Court also held that the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, which was enacted to extinguish the system of debt bondage, is a direct implementation of Article 23.

Clause (2): The Exception for Compulsory State Service

The second clause provides a narrow and specific exception to the general prohibition:

“(2) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from imposing compulsory service for public purposes, and in imposing such service the State shall not make any discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class or any of them.”¹³

This clause allows the State to require citizens to perform compulsory service for “public purposes.”¹⁴ This could include military conscription during a war or mandatory social service during a national emergency or natural calamity. However, this power is not absolute. The clause imposes a crucial condition: while imposing such service, the State cannot discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste, or class.¹⁵ This ensures that the burden of compulsory public service is shared equitably among all sections of society.

A Charter for Human Dignity

Article 23 of the Indian Constitution is a testament to the framers’ commitment to eradicating the deeply entrenched systems of exploitation that violated the very essence of human dignity.¹⁶ By prohibiting slavery, trafficking, and all forms of forced labour, it secures the individual’s right to their own person and labour.¹⁷ The judiciary’s expansive interpretation, particularly in linking forced labour to the payment of minimum wages, has ensured that the article remains a relevant and potent force for social and economic justice. It stands as a constitutional guarantee that Indian citizens are not to be treated as commodities or serfs, but as free individuals with the right to work in conditions of dignity and freedom