UNIT – V: Right Against Exploitation: Articles 23, 24

The Indian Constitution stands out as one of the world’s longest written constitutions, enshrining vital fundamental rights that protect its citizens' dignity and freedom. Articles 23 to 30 are particularly significant as they establish key pillars related to personal freedom, equality, and culture. In this post, we will dive into the judicial interpretations of these articles, focusing on the right against exploitation, freedom of religion, and cultural and educational rights. Let's explore how these rights safeguard individuals in India.

Prohibition against Forced Labour (Article 23)

Article 23 clearly prohibits human trafficking and forced labor, a crucial provision aimed at ensuring every citizen's right to work voluntarily under fair conditions. This article reflects a solid commitment to human dignity.

The Supreme Court of India has taken a strong stance against any form of coercion to work. For example, in People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that bonded labor practices must be declared illegal. This landmark case highlighted how economic vulnerability should never justify forced labor.

In recent times, the interpretation of Article 23 continues to evolve. The case of K. K. Saxena vs. Rajiv Gandhi College of Education (2006) reaffirmed that protections against forced labor apply across various contexts, including modern-day exploitation through human trafficking, where individuals may be manipulated or coerced into labor under abusive conditions.

Prohibition against Child Labour (Article 24)

Article 24 complements the prohibition of forced labor by specifically banning child labor in hazardous industries. This article represents a significant step toward the protection of children’s rights in India and has led to critical changes in legislation aimed at safeguarding those rights.

The judicial interpretation has underscored the necessity of strict enforcement of existing laws against child labor. In M.C. Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Supreme Court emphasized the vulnerable status of children and the state’s duty to protect them. The Court ruled for stringent measures against child labor, demanding that children must be afforded the right to education rather than being forced into work.

Moreover, the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, which has been amended, aligns with the constitutional mandate of Article 24. It reflects an understanding that addressing socio-economic issues, such as poverty, is crucial in the battle against child labor. A staggering 12.9 million children in India are still engaged in child labor, indicating that much work remains to be done to combat this pressing issue.

Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-28)

Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution affirm every citizen's right to freedom of religion, reinforcing India's secular nature. This right allows individuals to practice, express, and propagate any religion they choose.

Concept of Secularism

Secularism is a cornerstone of these articles. The Supreme Court, in the S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) case, interpreted secularism as equal treatment for all religions by the state, meaning that no religion should receive preferential treatment. This ruling reinforces the state's role in protecting the dignity and rights of diverse religious communities.

Religious Freedom and Denominations

Balancing individual and denominational religious freedoms is crucial, as highlighted in Church of God (Full Gospel) in India vs. K.K. Roy (2000). The Judiciary emphasized that religious groups have the autonomy to govern their own affairs while also respecting individual rights.

Restrictions on Religion; Essential Religious Practices

The Essential Religious Practices Test has emerged from various judgments to identify which practices are protected under Article 25. For instance, in The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), the Court stated that the state is allowed to regulate religious practices deemed non-essential. This distinction is vital in maintaining the integrity of religious freedom while ensuring public order.

State Responsibility in Religion

The state’s role in maintaining a balance between law and religious rights was emphasized in the TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) case, which ruled that laws concerning education must respect religious rights. This ensures the right to education does not infringe upon individual freedoms.

Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 & 30)

Cultural and educational rights, secured through Articles 29 and 30, affirm the rights of minorities to preserve their culture, language, and script. By guaranteeing the right to establish and manage educational institutions, these articles promote a diverse society.

Judicial Interpretation of Cultural Rights

The Supreme Court has actively taken part in interpreting Articles 29 and 30. In K. G. Shrinivas Rao vs. State of Karnataka (2007), the Court recognized the fundamental importance of cultural preservation as a part of an individual’s dignity. The ruling affirmed that individuals from minority communities have the right to cultivate and express their cultural identities.

Right to Educational Institutions

Article 30 ensures minorities can govern their educational institutions. The significant ruling in St. Xavier's College, Mumbai vs. State of Gujarat (1974) clarified that these institutions should not be subjected to arbitrary regulations, as this would infringe upon their rights. The judiciary maintains that the state may regulate educational standards but cannot undermine minority rights.

Summary Table

Article	Subject	Judicial Landmark	Key Principle
23	Prohibition of Forced Labour	Bandhua Mukti Morcha	Economic compulsion = forced labour
24	Child Labour Prohibition	MC Mehta	Rehabilitation of child workers
25	Religious Freedom	Shirur Mutt	Essential Religious Practices Test
26	Religious Affairs	Shirur Mutt	Denomination autonomy
27	No Tax for Religion	Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha	Only secular taxes allowed
28	Religious Instruction Ban	-	No religious instruction in State-run institutions
29	Cultural Rights	Champakam Dorairajan	Protection from discrimination
30	Minority Institutions	T.M.A. Pai, Inamdar	Minority rights in education

Summarized Table: Articles 23–30 (Judicial Interpretation)

Art.	Provision	Subject	Judicial Interpretation / Case Law	Key Principle
23	Prohibits traffic in human beings, begar and forced labour	Right Against Forced Labour	People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)	Even economic compulsion = forced labour; Right under Art. 21
24	Prohibits child labour in hazardous industries (under 14 yrs)	Protection of Children	MC Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)	Rehabilitation and education of child labourers ensured
25	Freedom of conscience and religion	Religious Freedom (Individual)	Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) Shirur Mutt Case (1954) Indian Young Lawyers Assn. v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018)	Essential Religious Practices Test; religious belief protected
26	Freedom to manage religious affairs	Religious Freedom (Denomination)	Shirur Mutt Case (1954) Sajjanlal Panjawat Case (1975)	Religious institutions have autonomy; State can regulate secular activities
27	No tax for promoting any religion	Freedom from Religious Taxation	Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar Case (1954)	Regulatory taxes valid, not taxes for religious promotion
28	No religious instruction in State-funded institutions	Religious Instruction	-	Absolute ban in wholly state-funded institutions; voluntary in others
29	Protection of language, script, culture	Cultural Rights of Citizens	State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)	No discrimination in admissions; culture/language protected
30	Minority right to establish and manage institutions	Educational Rights of Minorities	T.M.A. Pai Foundation (2002) P.A. Inamdar (2005)	Minority autonomy in education; subject to reasonable regulation

Final Thoughts

The insights gained from Articles 23 to 30 of the Indian Constitution illustrate the ongoing relationship between individual rights and state responsibilities. Through judicial interpretations, these rights have been fortified, making it clear that exploitation, discrimination, and cultural suppression have no place in a democratic society.

As society changes, these interpretations will play an essential role in addressing new challenges. The judiciary acts as a protector of rights and a promoter of social justice, contributing significantly to a more equitable society for everyone.

By examining these rights closely, we see they are not just legal concepts. They represent the foundation of a just and inclusive society, fostering public engagement and encouraging accountability. Understanding these interpretations enriches the conversation around freedom, equality, and justice in India.