Mc Mehta v. State Of Tamil Nadu
Somya Singh
Jaipur National University
This Case Commentary is written by Somya Singha, a Fourth-year law student of Jaipur National University
CASE DETAILS:
COURT- SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EQUIVALENT CITATION- 1996 (6) SCC 756
BENCH- Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice B.L. Hansaria, Justice S.B. Majumdar
DECIDED ON- December 10, 1996
PARTIES:
· APPELLANT- MC Mehta
· RESPONDENT- State of Tamil Nadu
PROVISIONS AND STATUTES:
· Article 24, Article 21, Article 32, Article 39(e) & (f) of the Indian Constitution
· The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986
ABSTRACT
This is the case filed by the Activist MC Mehta on behalf of the thousands of underage children who were forced to work at hazardous industries and work which can ruin their childhood. It was the landmark judgment against the practices of child labor. Employing children in hazardous industries is the most heinous thing and through this case, the many stringent laws have been made to stop child labor and protect them from any kind of exploitation. It also put a check on the state’s liability and duty to make sure that the children were not exploited and are getting their requisites rights such as the Right to free and compulsory Education, Right to Development, right to live a standard life, right to have nutritious food, etc. which were granted by The Constitution of India.
FACTS
The story begins in Sivakasi, a town in Tamil Nadu, where the minor children were included in the hazardous factories of Matchsticks manufacturing and firecrackers. The children are of small age and engaging in such a hazardous job is exposing them to a very high risk. MC Mehta filed the petition under Article 32 of The Constitution of India, arguing that it was morally wrong and against constitutional rights for children to work in these dangerous industries. The Tamil Nadu government did not dispute the assertions or the suggested fixes.
The court made orders aimed at enhancing the welfare of minors involved in labor. Following an incident at a Sivakasi fireworks factory, the court took suo motu cognizance and proceeded with additional measures to tackle safety and labor issues. This case is noteworthy because it shows how the courts are intervening to stop child labor and enhance working conditions in Sivakasi.
ISSUES RAISED
The case of MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu brought up concerns about the fundamental rights of minors working in dangerous industries being violated. The violation of Article 24 of the Indian Constitution, the insufficient implementation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, and the obligation of the state to safeguard children from exploitation and guarantee their entitlement to education and a respectable life were among the main issues raised.
Finding workable and effective solutions to end the practice of using minors for hazardous and damaging labor was the matter at hand for the court. The court also addressed issues concerning children's education and general well-being, placing a strong emphasis on their development.
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER
M.C. Mehta, the petitioner, argued that it is both morally and legally wrong to engage minors in hazardous industries in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu, especially in the manufacturing of matchsticks and firecrackers. He asserted that this practice violates the basic rights of child laborers; including their right to life and education, and that the state has a responsibility to protect these rights and ensure the well-being of children. M.C. Mehta stressed that subjecting children to labor in such risky environments not only robs them of their childhood but also exposes them to considerable health and safety hazards. He urged for immediate judicial action to put an end to child labor in these perilous industries and to provide these children with opportunities for education and growth.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT
The State of Tamil Nadu, representing the respondent, did not challenge the petitioner's assertions. Instead, they reaffirmed their dedication to addressing the problem of child labor in Sivakasi and recognized its severity. The state indicated its readiness to collaborate with others to find a resolution and acknowledged the gravity of employing minors in hazardous industries. Rather than presenting a counterargument, the respondent put forward recommendations and suggestions for addressing the issue. They proposed measures to improve the living conditions of child laborers, ensure access to education, and create opportunities for the growth and development of these children. To implement these measures and rectify the situation, the state expressed its willingness to work in partnership with the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The Court held that child labor is not limited to Siva Kasi. The Court cited several provisions found in the Indian Constitution, such as Articles 24, 39(e) and 9(f), 41, and 47, which protect children's social rights by outlawing child labor and requiring free and compulsory education as well as the provision of standards of honor. Other domestic laws that safeguard these rights include the Conditions of Employment for Bidi and Cigar Workers Act, the Apprentice Act, and the Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. Additionally, India adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which extends protection into a variety of a child's life.
The court determined that the primary cause was the families' declining financial condition, which made the kids work hard. To address this, the court-mandated the establishment of The Fund, a welfare fund for the rehabilitation of child labor. A fine of twenty thousand rupees will be imposed on anyone found in violation of child labor laws, with the proceeds going toward the child's development.
The government was ordered by the court to make sure that a family member of the child who had worked in dangerous jobs would have a job. This adult would be in charge of making sure the child attends school full-time and preventing them from engaging in risky jobs. The court did concede, though, that this might put a strain on the state. Consequently, for every child working in hazardous labor, the government must donate five thousand rupees to The Fund if it is unable to hire the adults.
To guarantee successful execution, the court ruled that:
· Within six months, the government must survey child labor.
· There should be defined criteria for hazardous employment areas.
· Parents or other adults living with the child should be employed.
· The government is required to give the child's parents eighty-five thousand rupees if the adult is unable to find employment. The money will stop if a child is not sent to school.
· Inspectors should guarantee free education and guarantee high-quality instruction in recognized institutions.
· Limiting the number of hours that children in non-hazardous jobs can work in a day so that they can work no more than six hours and receive at least two hours of education. The employer in question is responsible for covering all educational costs.