IRAC People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India

AIR 1982 SC 1473

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

Before: Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Hon’ble Justice Baharul Islam

Parties

People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others ………….. Petitioner

v.

Union of India & Others ………………………………………. Respondent

Decided on: September 18, 1982

Facts

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982), a civil liberties organisation initiated a public interest action as the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution. The initiation of this lawsuit was prompted by the uncovering of considerable exploitation of labourers engaged in construction for the 1982 Asian Games in Delhi.

An investigation revealed that the workforce, predominantly made up of migrants, experienced considerable exploitation. This involved the implementation of bonded labour, the hiring of minors under 14 in dangerous environments, failure to adhere to minimum wage regulations, and the absence of necessary facilities and protections as outlined by labour legislation.

The petition asserted that there were breaches of various laws, including the Minimum Wages Act^[2], Contract Labour Act^[3], Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act^[4], and the Bonded Labour Abolition Act^[5], in addition to constitutional rights specified in Articles 23^[6] and 24^[7].

The event emphasised the state’s responsibility to safeguard fundamental rights, indicating that violations can occur through both indirect actions and a lack of action, particularly in cases involving workers hired through intermediaries.

Timeline

Issues

Rules

Constitution of India

• Article 21 – Right to Life: The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity.
• Article 23 – Prohibition of Forced Labour: No person shall be forced to work without payment or against their will.
• Article 24 – Prohibition of Child Labour: Children below 14 years of age cannot be employed in hazardous occupations.
• Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies: Individuals can approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Minimum Wages Act, 1948

• Section 12: Employers are required to pay wages at or above the statutory minimum rate.

Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976

• Sections 2(g), 4, 6: Prohibits any form of bonded or debt-based labor system.

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970

• Sections 7, 12: Regulates working conditions of contract labor and mandates registration and licensing of contractors.

Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979

• Sections 12, 17: Ensures registration, minimum wages, displacement allowances, and health facilities for inter-state migrant workers.

Case Comment

Petitioner’s Contentions

• The disparity in wages among women stands in stark opposition to the principles established by the Equal Remuneration Act of 1976.
• The deduction of Rs. 1 by Jamadars has led to a situation where workers are deprived of their minimum wages, thereby infringing upon the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The Union of India recognised this issue in its reply affidavit, though it was disputed by the remaining three respondents.
• The assertion was posited that Article 24 of the Constitution was violated, alongside a transgression of the stipulations set forth in Section 3(3) of the Employment of Children Act, 1938, due to the engagement of minors under the age of 14 in construction endeavours.
• Allegations have emerged regarding violations of various provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 by contractors, resulting in the disenfranchisement and exploitation of labourers. This encompasses an insufficiency of suitable living conditions, healthcare services, and other fundamental amenities.
• Contractors have not succeeded in executing the stipulations of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, even though the Act has been in effect since October 2, 1980.

Respondent’s Contentions

• It is contended that the present case under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is likely to be dismissed since there is no infringement of workers’ fundamental rights, but rather of different labour rules.
• The argument presented suggests that the respondents are improperly joined and should be removed from the list of parties involved, as any alleged violation is attributed to private contractors rather than the State.
• The respondents explicitly refuted the allegations and asserted adherence to the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and the Contract Labour Act, 1970. They indicated taking appropriate action against contractors upon receiving complaints.
• It was acknowledged that Jamadars could be deducting Rs. 1 from the minimum wages owed to workers, a fact explicitly admitted by the Union of India.
• The argument was made that the provisions of the Employment of Children Act, 1938 do not apply in this instance, as construction work is not listed as hazardous in its Schedule. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 3(3) or Article 24 of the Constitution.
• The discussion on the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act highlights that implementation authority was assigned to the Administrator of Delhi on 14 July 1981, but enforcement was delayed due to late finalisation of rules until 4 June 1982.

Ratio

In summary thereof, the Bombay High Court in this case dealt with five issues and made the following ratio decidendi:

Analysis

Concurrent Aspects of the Judgement

Issue 1: Whether this petition is maintainable against Union of India, Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority when in actual the offending parties are private contractors?

The petition was indeed viable. The Court determined that the State is unable to circumvent its constitutional obligations by delegating responsibilities to private contractors during the execution of public projects. The Union of India, Delhi Administration, and DDA hold a fundamental responsibility to ensure the safeguarding of workers’ essential rights. The State maintained constitutional accountability, regardless of the contractors’ genuine treatment of the workers. This set a crucial standard indicating that internal public accountability must be upheld, particularly for programs that are funded or overseen by the government.^[23]

Issue 2: Whether this petition is maintainable as there is no breach of fundamental rights of labourers but of ordinary rights under labour laws?

The Court determined that the petition was authentic, noting that breaches of statutory labour rights—like the failure to pay minimum wages or the employment of child labor—are fundamentally linked to essential rights, specifically Articles 21, 23, and 24. The ruling emphasised that statutory rights derived from social legislation gain constitutional importance when they protect human dignity and livelihood. Consequently, while employment regulations arise from legislative frameworks, any breach of these laws could still signify a violation of fundamental rights, thus justifying the petition under Article 32. This interpretation enabled the judiciary to safeguard socio-economic rights within the boundaries of constitutional frameworks.^[24]

Issue 3: Whether Article 21 of the Indian Constitution also includes rights to livelihood and dignified life

The Court interpreted Article 21 broadly to include the right to live with dignity, which encompasses the right to livelihood, fair compensation, health, and acceptable working conditions. It acknowledged that existence transcends mere physical survival, emphasising that living with dignity is intrinsically connected to an individual’s capacity to secure a livelihood under equitable conditions. This ruling established the foundation for the concept of substantive due process in India, interpreting Article 21 as not only a limitation on governmental action but also as a positive obligation to guarantee fundamental socio-economic security for all individuals.^[25]

Interpretational Analysis

Theory Used: Purposive Interpretation

Justice P.N. Bhagwati dismissed a limited, literal interpretation of the Constitution. He interpreted Articles 21, 23, and 24 comprehensively and with a forward-thinking approach, focussing on realising the Constitution’s core principles of justice and dignity.

Impact:

• Article 21 interpreted to include the right to live with dignity, ensuring acceptable working conditions and fair remuneration.
• Article 23 (forced labour) includes economic coercion—especially when individuals are compelled to work for less than minimum wages due to poverty.^[26]

Theory Used: Constitution as a Living Document

The ruling indicated an understanding that the Constitution adapts with time and socio-economic changes. Rights should be interpreted in context, not applied rigidly.

Impact:

• Enabled the Court to include socio-economic rights—like dignity, livelihood, and health—within the scope of enforceable fundamental rights.^[27]

Doctrinal Shift: From Adjudication of Individual Rights → to Protection of Collective and Social Rights

Justice Bhagwati significantly transformed the judiciary’s role from passive umpire to active protector of the marginalised.

Impact:

• Expanded locus standi, allowing NGOs and concerned citizens to file PILs on behalf of those unable to access courts.
• Initiated the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) revolution in Indian constitutional law.^[28]

Doctrine: Doctrine of Non-Delegable Constitutional Duty

The State cannot delegate essential constitutional responsibilities. Even if private contractors are direct employers, the State is accountable for upholding workers’ basic rights in public works.

Impact:

• Broadened State accountability, making the government answerable for constitutional obligations—even when third-party contractors are involved.^[29]

Interpretive Principle: Directive Principles Give Content to Fundamental Rights

Despite their non-enforceability, Directive Principles have been instrumental in interpreting Articles 21 and 23 meaningfully.

Impact

Articles 39, 41, and 43 (pertaining to living wage, right to work, and dignity of employment) shaped the interpretation of basic rights, particularly Article 21^[30].

Transforming Labour Landscape

The ruling in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) represented a significant milestone in the development of labour law in India. The interpretation of Articles 21, 23, and 24 was conducted in a broad and socially responsive manner, thereby elevating statutory labour protections to the level of enforceable fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court determined that:

• Non-payment of minimum wages,
• Employment of children, and
• Use of bonded labour

represent violations of fundamental rights, extending beyond mere breaches of labour laws.

This change indicated that labour violations were no longer confined to administrative remedies and ^[31]could now be contested directly in constitutional courts via Article 32.

The Court broadened the interpretation of “forced labour” under Article 23 to encompass economic coercion, which occurs when workers are driven to accept exploitative conditions due to poverty or lack of options.

The Court’s decision to relax the rules of locus standi facilitated the ability of third parties and civil society organisations to submit petitions on behalf of vulnerable labourers, thereby establishing the groundwork for the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) era.

The ruling established a constitutional requirement for the State to safeguard workers’ rights, regardless of whether the work was delegated to private contractors. The case significantly altered India’s labour landscape by establishing a connection between social justice and the enforcement of constitutional principles.^[32]

Economic and Commercial Aspects

The judgement of the People’s Union for Democratic Rights carries substantial economic and commercial ramifications, particularly regarding large-scale infrastructure and public works initiatives.

The Court’s decision to hold the State accountable for maintaining fair labour conditions, even in instances where work is performed by private contractors, signifies a shift towards enhanced economic responsibility for public entities and developers.

Contractors and employers can no longer reduce expenses through:

• Underpayment of workers, or
• Evasion of labour regulations

as such violations now face the potential classification as constitutional breaches.

The rise in compliance costs for both government and private entities simultaneously fostered the formalisation of labour practices.^[33]

The Court’s focus on fair wages and humane working conditions carries significant commercial implications, influencing:

• Public procurement norms,
• Labour auditing practices, and
• Due diligence standards for state-sponsored projects

The ruling significantly shaped the interactions between foreign investors and multinational companies with Indian labour, as it integrated constitutional obligations into labour enforcement practices.

The decision, although initially increasing operational costs, was strategically designed to foster sustainable labour markets, ensuring that economic growth is in harmony with social justice principles.

The statement highlighted the necessity of ensuring that economic development does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of workers, integrating ethical considerations into the processes of commercial and infrastructural planning.^[34]

Conclusion: A Landmark Judgment

The ruling in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) marked a significant development in Indian constitutional and labour law doctrine. The enforcement of work rights was transformed by recognising their connection to fundamental rights, specifically Articles 21, 23, and 24.

The Court’s expansive interpretation ensured that economic exploitation, including that perpetrated by private contractors under government supervision, can be challenged as a violation of constitutional rights.

The verdict redefined:

• Employment protections,
• Public accountability, and
• Socio-economic justice in India

By allowing third parties to submit petitions and affirming the dignity of labour. This case remains a foundational reference in Public International Law and rights-based governance.^[35]

Bibliography

• Usha Ramanathan, Locating the Public Interest in the PUDR Case, 24(1) Indian J. Const. L. 33 (2000).
• Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, 4 Third World Legal Stud. 107 (1985).
• Rajeev Dhavan, Judicial Activism and the Indian Supreme Court: Lessons from the Asian Games Case, 36 Indian L. Inst. 1 (1994).
• P. Sathe, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 29 (2001).
• Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation, 23 J. Transnat’l L. 561 (1985).
• Anuj Bhuwania, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India, 49 & Pol. Wkly. 46 (2014).
• Ruma Pal, The Indian Constitution and the Right to Livelihood, 8 Nat’l L. Sch. India Rev. 117 (1996).
• Shylashri Shankar, Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India, 28 India Rev. 39 (2006).
• Marc Galanter & Vasujith Ram, PILs and the Indian Judiciary: Approaching the New Millennium, 15 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 141 (2009).
• P. Singh, Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights Through Public Interest Litigation in India, 25 Ind. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2015).

References:

1. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
2. The Minimum Wages Act, No. 11 of 1948, INDIA CODE (1948).
3. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, No. 37 of 1970, INDIA CODE (1970).
4. The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, No. 30 of 1979, INDIA CODE (1979).
5. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, No. 19 of 1976, INDIA CODE (1976).
6. INDIA CONST. art. 23.
7. INDIA CONST. art. 24.
8. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
9. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
10. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
11. INDIA CONST. art. 23.
12. INDIA CONST. art. 24.
13. INDIA CONST. art. 32.
14. The Minimum Wages Act, No. 11 of 1948, § 12, INDIA CODE (1948).
15. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, No. 19 of 1976, §§ 2(g), 4, 6, INDIA CODE (1976).
16. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, No. 37 of 1970, §§ 7, 12, INDIA CODE (1970).
17. The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, No. 30 of 1979, §§ 12, 17, INDIA CODE (1979).
18. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
19. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
20. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
21. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
22. People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.C. 235.
23. Yogesh K. Tyagi, Human Rights in India: An Overview, 29(2) Indian Journal of International Law 147 (1992).
24. Yogesh K. Tyagi, Human Rights in India: An Overview, 29(2) Indian Journal of International Law 147 (1992).
25. Upendra Baxi, Taking Suffering Seriously: Social Action Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, 4 Third World Legal Studies 107 (1985).
26. S.P. Sathe, Judicial Activism: The Indian Experience, 6 Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 (2001).
27. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Judicial Activism and Public Interest Litigation, 23 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 561 (1985).
28. Anuj Bhuwania, Courting the People: Public Interest Litigation in Post-Emergency India, 49 Economic and Political Weekly 46 (2014).
29. Ruma Pal, The Indian Constitution and the Right to Livelihood, 8 National Law School of India Review 117 (1996).
30. Shylashri Shankar, Public Interest Litigation and the Transformation of the Supreme Court of India, 28 India Review 39 (2006).
31. Marc Galanter & Vasujith Ram, PILs and the Indian Judiciary: Approaching the New Millennium, 15 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 141 (2009).
32. M.P. Singh, Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights Through Public Interest Litigation in India, 25 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review 1 (2015).
33. Usha Ramanathan, Locating the Public Interest in the PUDR Case, 24(1) Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 33 (2000).
34. Khushpreet Kaur Matharu, IRAC Analysis of People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Indian J. L. & Legal Res. (June 24, 2022), available at: https://www.ijllr.com/post/irac-analysis-of-people-s-union-for-democratic-rights-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-and-ors
35. Sumit Kumar Singh, People’s Union for Democratic Rights and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., Legal Vidhiya, available at: https://legalvidhiya.com/peoples-union-for-democratic-rights-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors/