Newdelhi: The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to set up a special cell to monitor the implementation of the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, which bars child labour in hazardous industries. A bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and NV Anjaria also instructed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to issue instructions to enforcement agencies through the chief secretaries of the respective states.
The bench stated that with a view to preserving the rights of children and adolescents, the authorities must constitute a special cell to continue monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Act and issue directions to enforcing agencies through respective state chief secretaries, following the amendments under Act No. 35 of 2016.
The 2016 amendment modified the original Child Labour Act of 1986 and took effect on September 1, 2016. It introduced a complete prohibition on the employment of children below the age of 14 across all occupations and processes.
The legal proceedings stemmed from a public interest petition filed in 2009 by the NGO Health For Millions, which challenged the constitutional validity of a proviso in Section 3 of the 1986 Act. That provision had previously permitted children to work in hazardous beedi-rolling processes within family workshops and in government-aided or funded schools. The petition had additionally asked the court to direct the Centre to supply educational facilities and two midday meals to such young workers. Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva represented the petitioner during the hearings.
During the proceedings, counsel representing the Centre argued that the 2016 legislative amendment had largely addressed the petitioner's grievances, rendering the original petition unnecessary for further consideration.
The court concurred that the specific prayers outlined in the writ petition no longer required adjudication, but stressed that ensuring full and complete effect of the 2016 legislative changes remained paramount. The bench noted that it was persuaded not to examine the older prayers directly, but emphasized that the respondents bore the responsibility of ensuring complete and strict compliance with the mandate of the Child and Adolescent Labour Act, including all amended provisions.
Consequently, the Supreme Court opted not to evaluate the initial requests made in the petition, instead issuing binding directives for authorities to guarantee rigorous enforcement of the updated child labour legislation via a dedicated monitoring cell and state-level enforcement channels.