Question

In the early 1980s, a social activist group discovered severe exploitation of labourers working in stone quarries near Delhi. The workers, including many children, were working in extremely hazardous conditions, living in makeshift shelters, and were effectively trapped in a cycle of debt and forced labour. The conditions revealed systematic violations of fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court was approached to look into the dire circumstances of the working persons there, and one of the following views of the Court was sustained in the said case. Identify from the following -

• A. The Supreme Court recognized the right against forced labour as a fundamental right derived from the right to life and human dignity under Article 21.
• B. The Court ruled that only government agencies, and not social activists, could file petitions concerning labour rights.
• C. The Court established that the right to free legal aid is a mere directive principle and cannot be enforced as a fundamental right.
• D. The judgment primarily focused on providing monetary compensation to the affected labourers without addressing systemic issues of bonded labour.

Hint:

The Asiad Workers Case broadened the interpretation of Article 21 to include dignity and humane working conditions, and marked a major expansion of PIL in India.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Case Reference.
The case described is People’s Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India (1982), also known as the Asiad Workers Case. This case was filed under Article 32 by a social activist group highlighting the exploitation and inhuman working conditions of labourers.
Step 2: Supreme Court’s View.
The Supreme Court held that the right against forced labour is not limited to physical compulsion but includes economic compulsion and exploitative conditions. It derived this right from Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity) and Article 23 (Prohibition of Forced Labour).
Step 3: Public Interest Litigation Principle.
The Court allowed social activists and organizations to file petitions on behalf of disadvantaged groups, expanding the scope of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Step 4: Analysis of Options.
(A) Correct — The Court recognized forced labour as a violation of the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
(B) Incorrect — The Court explicitly permitted social activists to file petitions on behalf of exploited workers.
(C) Incorrect — The Court ruled that free legal aid is part of the right to life under Article 21, not a mere directive principle.
(D) Incorrect — The judgment focused on systemic reform, not just compensation.
Step 5: Conclusion.
The judgment was a landmark in recognizing the connection between human dignity and fundamental rights, reinforcing that social activists could seek justice for the marginalized.