Constitutional Safeguards under Article 23 & 24: Scope and Judicial Interpretation

Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of India constitute the core of the “Right against Exploitation,” prohibiting trafficking in human beings, begar and other forms of forced labour, and the employment of children below fourteen years in hazardous occupations. Although tersely worded, these provisions have generated a rich sometimes path breaking jurisprudence. Through public interest litigation and expansive interpretive techniques, the Supreme Court transformed Article 23 from a narrow ban on slavery-like practices into a broader guarantee against unfree labour, including labour paid below the statutory minimum. Article 24, initially framed around factory and mine work, has been read against an evolving legislative landscape especially the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 as amended in 2016, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and allied policy instruments. This paper traces the text, structure, and historical foundations of Articles 23 and 24; synthesises leading cases such as People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (the “Asiad” case), Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of J&K, and M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu; and examines contemporary statutory changes, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) provisions on trafficking and the Code on Wages, 2019. It argues that the Court’s epistolary and remedial innovations cemented horizontality for Articles 23 -24, created enforcement linkages to Directive Principles (Articles 39(e) -(f)), and generated structural reliefs for identification, release, and rehabilitation of bonded labourers and child workers. At the same time, tensions persist most visibly around the line between “compulsory service for public purposes” and prohibited forced labour; the “hazardous” versus “non hazardous” distinction for child work; and the contested 2016 “family enterprise” exception. The paper concludes that the scope and judicial interpretation of Articles 23 and 24 exemplify transformative constitutionalism in India, while highlighting areas where legislative clarity, administrative capacity, and data driven oversight remain essential.