Bonded Labourers’ Aid: Supreme Court Sets 7-Day Disbursal Target From Release Certificates, Says Pending Cases Alone Cannot Delay Payment

Surendra Manjhi and other labourers were rescued from a brick kiln in Uttar Pradesh on 28 February 2019 and repatriated to Bihar.

Although release certificates were issued, financial assistance was delayed: Manjhi received it in 2022, and it was asserted that 17 of the 42 rescued labourers remained unpaid.

The proceedings also raised difficulties caused by differing State procedures, including release certificates not being issued in the prescribed format.

A connected petition by the National Campaign Committee for the Eradication of Bonded Labour and others raised broader concerns about implementation of the statutory and rehabilitation framework.

The Court considered the petitions together and reviewed the Union’s compliance affidavit and proposed measures.

Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits trafficking, begar and other forms of forced labour, while Article 21 requires the State to protect life and dignity; Article 24 prohibits specified forms of child labour.

The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 abolishes bonded labour and extinguishes bonded-debt obligations under Sections 4–6, while Sections 10–14 assign enforcement responsibilities to State Governments, District Magistrates and Vigilance Committees, including duties relating to identification and rehabilitation.

The Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers provides for financial assistance and other rehabilitation measures.

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, and Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1984) 3 SCC 243, establish that identification, release and rehabilitation are interconnected obligations and that release without adequate rehabilitation does not fulfil the constitutional duty.

The Court treated rehabilitation as a continuing State obligation and held that administrative procedures must not frustrate timely relief.

The Court found that the principal problem was ineffective implementation, not the absence of a statutory framework.

Manjhi’s delay and the asserted non-payment to 17 co-rescued labourers illustrated that delayed assistance could defeat its rehabilitative purpose.

Inter-State differences in certificates, records and administrative responsibility could not be allowed to obstruct a labourer’s entitlement; the Court therefore required uniform procedures, timelines and clear allocation of responsibility.

It further distinguished immediate rehabilitation assistance from criminal accountability, holding that assistance should not be withheld merely because investigation or prosecution remained pending, where scheme requirements were met.

The directions were framed to improve implementation and accountability without displacing the executive’s primary statutory role.

The Union must file a compliance affidavit within four months, and States and Union Territories must comply within six months and report thereafter.

The petitions were not disposed of; they remain pending for monitoring, with the next listing directed after seven months.