9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether prisoners required to do labor as part of their punishment should be paid wages at rates prescribed under Minimum Wages law. 2. Whether the deduction of the cost of food and clothes from prisoners' wages is permissible. 3. Consideration of the constitutional prohibition against forced labor under Article 23. 4. Determination of equitable wages for prisoners. 5. Recommendation for legislation to compensate victims from prisoners' wages. Detailed Analysis: 1. Payment of Minimum Wages to Prisoners: The primary issue addressed is whether prisoners who perform labor as part of their punishment should be paid wages at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages law. The Supreme Court considered appeals from various State Governments challenging High Court judgments that upheld the contention that denial of such wages infringes on constitutional protections against forced labor. The Court noted that the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and senior counsels supported the principle that prisoners should be paid at the rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages law. The Court acknowledged that the State Governments generally agreed that prisoners should be paid wages, but contested the extent and the deductions permissible. 2. Deduction of Cost of Food and Clothes: The Court examined the judgments of various High Courts, including Kerala, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh, which directed that prisoners be paid wages without deductions for food and clothes. The Supreme Court considered the State Governments' argument that deducting the cost of food and clothes is permissible. The Court noted that the obligation to provide food and clothes is an inherent responsibility of the State due to the prisoners' confinement. However, the Court also recognized that deductions for certain amenities and services are allowed under the Minimum Wages Act and concluded that the request to deduct expenses for food and clothes from prisoners' wages is reasonable. 3. Constitutional Prohibition Against Forced Labor: Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits forced labor and mandates that any contravention of this provision shall be an offense. The Court discussed whether hard labor imposed on convicted prisoners constitutes "forced labor" under Article 23. The Court referred to the decision in People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, which held that labor provided for remuneration less than the minimum wage falls within the scope of "forced labor." The Court concluded that compulsory labor for convicted prisoners serves a public purpose, such as deterrence and reformation, and thus falls within the exception provided in Article 23(2). 4. Determination of Equitable Wages: The Court emphasized that prisoners, like any other workmen, are entitled to equitable wages for their labor. The Court referred to the Mulla Committee Report, which recommended fair and equitable wages for prisoners. The Court noted that paying a pittance is virtually paying nothing and highlighted the need to consider contemporary legislative standards on wages, such as the Minimum Wages Act. The Court directed each State to constitute a wage fixation body to recommend equitable wages for prisoners and to fix interim wages within six weeks. 5. Legislation for Victim Compensation: The Court recognized the importance of considering the plight of victims and suggested that the State should make appropriate laws to divert a portion of prisoners' wages to compensate deserving victims. The Court noted that restorative and reparative theories emphasize restitution and reparation to victims. However, the Court acknowledged that it could not issue a direction for such compensation in the absence of specific legislation due to the prohibition in Article 300A of the Constitution. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that: 1. It is lawful to employ prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to do hard labor. 2. Jail officials may permit other prisoners to work if they request it. 3. Prisoners must be paid equitable wages for their labor, and States must constitute wage fixation bodies to recommend such wages. 4. States must fix interim wages within six weeks and report compliance. 5. States are recommended to legislate for setting apart a portion of prisoners' wages to compensate victims. The appeals and writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and the registry was directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary of every State Government.
|
