सं Samvidhan

The Constitution of India

Article 23

Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour

Why this exists

Article 23 was added to abolish deeply entrenched practices like slavery, bonded labour, and begar (unpaid forced labour, often demanded from lower castes or the poor by landlords and colonial officials) that were common in pre-independence India. The framers wanted to guarantee basic human dignity and economic freedom by making such exploitation a constitutional offence, not just a matter of ordinary law.

How courts read it

In the landmark case *People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India* (1982), the Supreme Court held that 'forced labour' isn't limited to physical coercion — paying workers less than the minimum wage also counts as forced labour under Article 23, because economic necessity can compel someone to work against their will just as much as a whip can. In *Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India* (1984), the Court expanded protections for bonded labourers, directing the State to identify, release, and rehabilitate them, treating Article 23 as imposing a positive duty on the State, not just a prohibition.

Common misconceptions
  • Myth: Article 23 only applies to literal slavery or physical chains.
    Fact: The Supreme Court has ruled that paying workers below minimum wage, or forcing them to work due to poverty or debt bondage, also counts as forced labour under Article 23.
  • Myth: Any government-mandated work, like community service or military conscription, violates Article 23.
    Fact: Clause (2) specifically permits the State to impose compulsory service for public purposes, as long as it's applied without discrimination based on religion, race, caste, or class.