Article 23 and Forced Labour

Payment below the statutory minimum wage can amount to forced labour because a worker driven by hunger, poverty or destitution may have no genuine freedom to reject exploitative terms. The Supreme Court has therefore interpreted Article 23 to cover economic compulsion, even when some remuneration is paid.

Constitutional basis

Article 23(1) prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour. The prohibition protects citizens and non-citizens and operates against exploitation by both the State and private persons.

• The expression other similar forms of forced labour extends beyond unpaid begar and includes labour obtained through physical, legal or economic coercion.
• Payment of some wages does not by itself make labour voluntary when the worker lacks a meaningful choice.

Why payment below minimum wage is coercive

A statutory minimum wage is the legal floor below which labour cannot ordinarily be purchased. When necessity compels a person to work for less, apparent consent may conceal economic compulsion, making the labour forced for constitutional purposes.

• The employer benefits from the worker's vulnerability and obtains labour on terms prohibited by law.
• This interpretation gives Article 23 substantive effect because limiting it to physical coercion would leave poverty-driven exploitation unprotected.

Judicial interpretation

In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court held that force includes compulsion arising from hunger and poverty; labour remunerated below the minimum wage falls within Article 23. In Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983), it held that workers employed on famine-relief works could not be paid below the minimum wage merely because the work served a public purpose.

• The public-service exception in Article 23(2) permits compulsory service for public purposes, but it does not authorise payment below the legally required wage.