Question

Which is the landmark case which expanded the scope of Article 23 of the Constitution of India?

• A. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
• B. PUDR v. Union of India
• C. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu
• D. Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut

Hint:

Remember the association: PUDR Case $\rightarrow$ Forced Labour $\rightarrow$ Article 23 $\rightarrow$ Minimum Wage Protection.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Concept: Article 23 of the Constitution of India prohibits human trafficking, begar, forced labour, and other similar forms of exploitation. The provision is a fundamental right intended to safeguard human dignity and protect economically vulnerable sections of society from exploitation. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 23 broadly through various landmark judgments.

Step 1: Understanding the background of the PUDR case.
The case of People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India arose from investigations into labour conditions at construction projects connected with the Asian Games. Workers were being paid wages below the legally prescribed minimum wage. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such labour amounted to forced labour under Article 23.

Step 2: Observing the Supreme Court's interpretation.
The Court held that when a person is compelled by economic necessity to work for wages below the statutory minimum wage, such labour amounts to forced labour. The Court significantly expanded the meaning of: Forced Labour beyond physical coercion and recognized economic compulsion as a form of coercion.

Step 3: Significance of the judgment.
The decision transformed Article 23 into a powerful tool for protecting labour rights. It established that: Payment below minimum wages can constitute Forced Labour under Article 23 Therefore, \[ \boxed{\text{PUDR v. Union of India}} \] is the landmark case that expanded the scope of Article 23.

Answer 2

All four options are well known Supreme Court decisions, so the way to answer this is to pin down exactly which constitutional provision or legal principle each case is remembered for, rather than relying on a general sense that they are all landmark cases.

1. Option A, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: This case is remembered for laying down guidelines against sexual harassment of women at the workplace, later codified into the POSH Act, and it is tied to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21, not to Article 23's protection against forced labour.
2. Option B, People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India: This case arose from workers on Asian Games construction projects being paid below the statutory minimum wage. The Supreme Court held that compelling a person to work for less than the minimum wage, out of economic necessity, amounts to forced labour within the meaning of Article 23, extending the provision beyond physical compulsion to economic compulsion. This is a direct and specific expansion of Article 23.
3. Option C, M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu: This case is associated with child labour in hazardous industries, most notably the Sivakasi matchbox and fireworks factories, and its constitutional anchor is Article 24's prohibition on employing children in hazardous work along with Article 21, not Article 23.
4. Option D, Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut: This case concerns industrial and labour law questions before a labour court, dealing with matters like standing orders and disciplinary proceedings, and has no connection to the constitutional scope of forced labour under Article 23.

Only the PUDR case is specifically about interpreting Article 23, and it is the one that stretched the meaning of forced labour to include work performed under economic compulsion.

Hence, the correct answer is Option B: PUDR v. Union of India.