NEERAJA CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case which illustrates forcibly what we have said on many an occasion that, it is not enough merely to identify and release bonded labourers but it is equally, perhaps more, important that after identification and release, they must be rehabilitated, because without rehabilitation, they would be driven by poverty, helplessness and despair into serfdom once again. Poverty and destitution are almost perennial. features of Indian rural life for large numbers of unfortunate ill-starred humans in this country and it would be nothing short of cruelty and heartlessness to identify and release bonded labourers merely to throw them at the mercy of the existing social and economic system which denies to them even the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing. It is obvious that poverty is a curse inflicted on large masses of people by our malfunctioning socio-economic structure and it has the disastrous effect of corroding the soul and sapping the moral fibre of a human being by robbing him of all basic human dignity and destroying in him the higher values and the finer susceptibilities which go to make up this wonderful creation of God upon earth, namely, man. It does not mean mere inability to buy the basic necessities, of life but it goes much deeper, it deprives a man of all opportunities of education and advancement and increases a thousand fold" his vulnerability to misfortunes which come to him all too often and which he is not able to withstand on account of lack of social and material resources. We, who have not experienced poverty and hunger, want and destitution, talk platitudinously of freedom and liberty but these words have no meaning for a person who has not even a square meal per day, hardly a roof over his head and scarcely one piece of cloth to cover his shame. 'What use are 'identification' and 'release' to bonded labourers if after attaining their so-called freedom from bondage to a master they are consigned to a life of another bondage, namely, bondage to hunger and starvation where they have nothing to hope for - not even anything to die for - and they do not know whether they will be able to secure even a morsel of food to fill the hungry stomachs of their starving children, What would they prize more : freedom and liberty with hunger and destitution starring them, in the face or some food to satisfy their hunger and the hunger of their near and dear ones. even at the cost of freedom and liberty. The answer is obvious. It is therefore imperative that neither the Government nor the Court should be content with merely securing identification and release of bonded labourers but every effort must be made by them to see that the freed bonded labourers are properly and suitably rehabilitated after identification and release.

(2.) This issue of rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers arises squarely in the present writ petition. The writ petition is based upon a letter dated 20th September, 1982 addressed to one of the Judges! of this Court by the petitioner who is Civil Rights Correspondent of Statesman a leading newspaper in the country. This letter was directed to be treated as a writ petition but for the sake of completeness, before notice, was issued to the respondent, Mr. Govind Mukhoty learned advocate who was good enough to accede to the request of the Court to appear on behalf of the petitioner, filed a regular writ petition in substitution of this letter and it is that writ petition which is now being disposed of by us. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that about 135 bonded labourers who were working the stone quarries in Faridabad had been released from bondage by an order made by this Court in the first week of March, 1982 since they were found to be bonded labourers within the meaning of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and on release, they had been brought back to their respective villages in Bilaspur District of the State of Madhya. Pradesh with a promise of ,rehabilitation by the Chief Minister of that State. But, said the petitioner. when she visited three villages, namely, Kunda, Pandharia and Bhairavapura in Mungeli Taluka of Bilaspur District in September 1982, with a view to ascertaining whether or not the process of rehabilitation as promised by the Chief Minister had commenced, she found that most of the released bonded labourers who belonged to these three villages had not yet been rehabilitated though about six months had passed since their release and they were living almost on the verge of starvation. It may be pointed out that out of 135 released bonded labourers about 75 belonged to these three villages and 45 out of them were from village Kunda. It is also significant to note that all the 75 released bonded labourers from these three villages belonged to Scheduled Castes. The petitioner annexed to the writ petition a copy of an article written by her and published in the issue of Stateman dated 14th September, 1982 in which she set out how these released bonded labourers are without land and work, facing immense hardship and near-starvation in the absence of any rehabilitation assistance provided by the State Governmental. This article written by the petitioner setting out what she personally observed in the course (if her visit to three villages, namely, Kunda; Pandharia and Bhairavpura discloses a distressing state of affairs which shows how utterly, callous and indifferent can the administrative machinery of the State Government be towards the plight of the released bonded labourers despite assurance of rehabilitation given by the Chief Minister. It seems that once these freed bonded labourers were brought back to heir villages, the administration of the State Government thought they had discharged their duty and then they conveniently forgot about the existence of these unfortunate specimen of humanity. The fate which befell these released, bonded labourers after their repatriation to their, respective villages is perhaps symptomatic of what is happening to bonded labourers in other parts of the country. In the first place, very little attention- is paid towards identification and release of bonded labourers and even if they are freed, there is complete neglect of rehabilitation programme for them with the result that from slavery they go back to starvation. That is why when the petitioner interviewed some of these bonded labourers they said that they would rather go back to the stone quarries for work than 'starve and added: "we might have been killed there. but we are also dying here". It is interesting to find that according to the information gathered by the petitioner, more than 100 years ago 90% of the land was owned by Satnamis while now they; own less than 50%. The petitioner pointed out in the writ petition that some of these released bonded labourers owned land at one time but they had lost it to the Sahukars, that is the money lenders and some of them had pledged their jewellery and other small belongings in order to raise money for their subsistence. Some of these released bonded labourers were, according to the petitioner, going to the Bhadora forest to get bamboo and wood which they would sell and they had to walk 10 k.ms. carrying head loads weighing 20 k. gs. and more which would fetch them upto Rs. 10 to Rs. 15, though, if, they were caught by the forest guards or police men in this process, they would, have to part with three or four days' earnings. The petitioner said that there were various schemes of the Government for the purpose of providing rehabilitation' assistance to freed bonded labourers and there were also the Intergrated Rural Development Plan and the 20 Point Economic Programme but "the benefits had been cornered by those with political influence and the well-to-do in the villages." The petitioner urged in the writ petition that it was the obligation of the State Government to ensure rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers under the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and its failure to provide such rehabilitation assistance amounted to- violation of the fundamental right of the freed bonded labourers under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner therefore prayed for a direction to the State Government to take steps for the economic and social rehabilitation of the freed bonded labourers who were released as a result of the order made by this Court in the first week of March 1982 and who were residing in various villages in Bilaspur District.

(3.) When this writ petition came up up for preliminary hearing before the Court, notice was issued to the State Government and the State Government was directed to "inform the Court at the next hearing of the writ petition as to whether they have framed any scheme or schemes for rehabilitation of bonded labourers, whether any vigilance committees have been constituted in the District of Bilaspur and- whether any and if so what steps have been taken or are being taken for rehabilitating 135 workers who were released by the order made by this Court in the first week of March 1982, and who are now living in, the three villages, namely, Kunda, Pandharia and Bhairavpura in Mungeli Taluk of Bilaspur District". Pursuant to this direction given by the Court, the State Government filed the counter-affidavit of one G. R. Mahajan, Asstt. Labour Commissioner at Bilaspur setting out what steps had been taken and were being taken by the State Government for identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. The State Government pointed out that "very often vested interests veil successfully the status of bonded labourers and thus obstruct the process of identification; the labourers themselves are not educated enough to come forward and lodge a complaint: they appear to be reconciled themselves to their fate" and, that is why there is a wide gap between legal discharge of bonded labourers and their factual liberation. The State Government observed that all District Magistrates in the State were conferred powers under Section 10 of the Act and powers of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for the trial of offences under Section 21 of the Act were also conferred on all District Magistrates and Sub-Divisional Magistrates and repeated instructions were issued to the District Magistrates to identify bonded labourers. The State Government also pointed out that Vigilance Committees had been constituted by it in all the 44 districts of the State as required by Section 13 of the Act. The State Government also set out the composition of the Vigilance Committee for the Bilaspur District as also of the Vigilance Committees for the sub-divisions of Bilaspur, Jangjir, Katghora, Sakti and Mungeli. These vigilance committees, according to the particulars given by the State Government, included three non-government nominees, but the performance of these vigilance committees. appeared to be rather dismal, because on the admission of the State Government itself the number of bonded labourers identified, freed and rehabilitated in the whole of the State could not but be regarded as ridiculously low. The figures given by the State Government in the affidavit of G. R. Mahajan showed that in all 1531 bonded labourers were identified in the year 1978, 75 in the year 1980, 57 in the year 1981 and 114 in the year 1982 and even in regard to these freed bonded labourers, the State Government was not in a position to state definitely that they had been rehabilitated but all that the State Government could say was that "steps were taken for their rehabilitation'. It is absurd to suggest that in the whole of the State there were only about 1800 bonded labourers and they were all freed in the course of four years, leaving no more bonded labourers in the State. It is significant to note that apart from the present writ petition, several other cases have come before this Court from Madhya Pradesh by way of public interest litigation initiated by social action groups engaged in the task of identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers and the reports of the Commissioners, appointed by this Court in some of those cases have clearly shown that there is a sizable number of bonded labourers in the State who have yet to be identified, released and rehabilitated. But the absurdly insignificant figures of bonded labourers identified and released by the State administration so far are clearly indicative of the indifference and inadequacy of the State Administration in securing identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers within the State. Perhaps this indifference and inadequacy of the State Administration arises from the fact that the State Government is not willing to admit the existence of bonded labour within its territory lest it might affect its image and moreover the officers of the State Administration seem to be taking the view that unless a workman is able to show that he is forced to provide labour to the employer in consideration of an advance of for any other economic consideration received by him, he cannot be regarded as a bonded labourer within the meaning of the definition of that term in the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1956. But, having regard to the decision of this Court in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802), it is clear that this view on which the officers of the State Administration seem to be relying for the purpose of disputing the existence of bonded labour is erroneous. We have pointed out in our judgment in Bandhua Mukti Morcha's case (supra) that (At p. 827) :-