---
title: "Right Against Exploitation & Religion: Arts 23-28"
description: "Master Articles 23-28: the Right against Exploitation covering trafficking, forced labour and child labour, alongside the Right to Freedom of Religion and its"
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/lessons/upsc-indian-polity-right-against-exploitation-freedom-of-religion-articles-23-28"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

Right against Exploitation & Freedom of Religion (Articles 23-28)

Read 1 of 4

1/80 XP so far this lesson

Lesson 18 min 20 XP

# Right against Exploitation & Freedom of Religion (Articles 23-28)

Master Articles 23-28: the Right against Exploitation (trafficking, forced labour, child labour) and the Right to Freedom of Religion for UPSC Prelims and Mains GS-2.

## The constitutional text: Articles 23 and 24

The Right against Exploitation comprises just two articles, but both are heavily litigated and high-yield for UPSC.

**Article 23** prohibits (1) traffic in human beings, (2) *begar* (forced labour without payment), and (3) other similar forms of forced labour. Crucially, Article 23(1) is enforceable **against both the State and private individuals** — one of the few Fundamental Rights that operates horizontally. Parliament gave it teeth through the **Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956** (renamed the **Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956**) and the **Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976**.

Article 23(2) carves out an exception: the State may impose **compulsory service for public purposes** (such as military conscription or compulsory social service), but in doing so it **shall not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste or class**.

The Supreme Court expanded "forced labour" decisively in **People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)** — the *Asiad Workers' case*. Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that paying **less than the statutory minimum wage** amounts to *forced labour* under Article 23, because economic compulsion is itself a form of force. In **Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)**, the Court read Article 23 with Article 21 to direct identification and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, treating a PIL letter as a writ petition.

## Article 24: prohibition of child labour

**Article 24** bars employment of any child **below 14 years** in any **factory, mine, or other hazardous employment**. Note the precise scope: Article 24 does **not** ban all child labour, only hazardous work. Non-hazardous employment of children is regulated by statute, not by Article 24 itself.

The enabling legislation is the **Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986**, amended in **2016** to prohibit employment of children below 14 in **all** occupations (except helping family enterprises after school hours and in entertainment), and to create the category of **"adolescent"** (14-18) barred from hazardous work. The landmark ruling is **M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996)** — the *Sivakasi fireworks case* — where the Court ordered employers of children in hazardous industries to pay ₹20,000 per child into a **Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund**, with the government contributing ₹5,000 and providing an adult member of the family alternative employment.

Remember the constitutional architecture: Article 24 is buttressed by **Article 21A** (free and compulsory education for 6-14, inserted by the 86th Amendment, 2002) and the Directive Principle in **Article 39(e) and (f)**, which directs the State to protect children's health and against exploitation. The shift of children's education from a Directive Principle to a Fundamental Right reflects the *Unni Krishnan (1993)* logic that education is implicit in the right to life.

High-yield distinction: Article 23 protects everyone (citizens and non-citizens) and binds private parties; Article 24 sets an absolute floor against hazardous child labour.

One question, then back to the lesson

Ask about this lesson