Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others [2011] INSC 403; Writ Petition (C) No. 51 of 2006 - India

DomesticIndia
Written By Gisela Sin Gomiz

Background

Bachpan Bachao Andolan (“the petitioner”) is an NGO that has campaigned for the removal of children from circuses in India since 1996. The petitioner conducted a study on child labour in Indian circuses starting in 2002, which found that children were trafficked from poor parts of India and Nepal and subjected to physical, emotional and sexual abuse in circuses. The petitioner descibed rights violations related to the following broad categories: (i) insufficient space, (ii) quantity and quality of food, (iii) erratic sleep times, (iv) unhygienic sanitary conditions, (v) no provision of health care, (vi) danger due to high risk factor of work, (vii) poor/manipulated salaries, (viii) bound by long term contracts, (ix) loss of all-round development (incl. education, play, recreation) by isolation from outside world.  

The petitioner filed this case seeking an order requiring the Indian government to (i) issue appropriate guidelines for the persons engaged in circuses; (ii) to conduct raids in all circuses to liberate the children and to investigate violations of their rights; (iii) appoint special forces to ensure actions and check on cross border trafficking; (iv) apply the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and make the violations offences under the Indian Penal Code /Juvenile Justice Act; (v) empower child welfare committees to award compensation to all victims rescued, and (vi) lay out guidelines prohibiting the employment/engagement of children up to the age of 18 in any form in circuses.

Reasoning

The petition was very broad in scope, and the judgment sets out the petition elaborately. However, the court decided to focus on the issue of children working in circuses, and in particular, the violation of the right to education of such children. The court noted that under the 2005 Constitution of India the right to education was now a fundamental right.

The Court found that “[f]rom the […] submissions made by the learned Solicitor General it is abundantly clear that the Government of India is fully aware about the problems of children working in various places particularly in circuses” (para. 67). The court indicated its intention to deal with the broader problem of children’s exploitation systematically, but limited its ruling to children working in circuses in the first instance.

Remedy

The court ordered: (i) the Central government to issue suitable notifications prohibiting the employment of children in circuses; (ii) respondents to conduct raids on all circuses to liberate the children living in them; (iii) the respondents to ensure that the rescued children live in protective homes until the age of 18; (iv) the respondents to contact the parents of children to enable their return home where possible; and (v) the respondents to provide proper schemes of rehabilitation for rescued children; (vi) the Secretary of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Women and Child Development to file a report on compliance with the court within ten weeks.

Role of children

Children did not act as party to the case, but a child rights NGO filed the public interest petition.

Enforcement and other outcomes

 In 2015, several years after the first order, the Supreme Court found that there had been a failure of compliance with its earlier orders relating to children in circuses. The judgment in 2015 mentions an order dated 12 December 2014, which led to a meeting being convened by the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development and attended by the Secretary, Minister of Labour, as well as by several officers from the various States. As part of its monitoring role, the Supreme Court issued notices for the Union government and all the states to file affidavits, but the only state that complied within the time frame was the State of Punjab. After considering a report of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Court issued a directive that the Central Government should monitor the activities of the circuses through National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights and State Governments, and indicated that the petitioner or any other person was at liberty to approach the court or any other appropriate authority if any instance of child labour or child abuse was found in any circus.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The case was recognized as a landmark decision to protect children coerced to work in circuses. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the government was fully aware of the problems children face working under such conditions.

Also, only shortly after the decision (on May 5, 2011), India ratified the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Protocol) after having signed it already on December 12, 2002. The outcome of this case served as a catalyst for this move. Prior to the judgment, India had struggled with a comprehensive definition for the crime of human trafficking.  In the aftermath of the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, a committee known as the  Justice Verma Committee  was set up to review and make recommendations to update the Indian Criminal Law. In 2013 the Committee released its report, and recommended the adoption of the definition of human trafficking used in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v Union of India case. The Committee pressed upon Parliament the need to update the national laws concerning human trafficking.

Country

India

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of India

April 18, 2011

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the petitioner:

For the Respondent:

Amici curiae:

Case documents

Secondary documents

Gisela Sin Gomiz
Previous

Miller v Alabama; Jackson v. Hobbs No. 10–9646 (and No. 10–9647) US Supreme Court 25 June 2012 - United States of America
Next

Moyo v Attorney General of Malawi [2009] MWHC 83 - Malawi