People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India

Facts

• Public Interest Litigation filed by PUDR regarding labour conditions of workers employed in construction of Asian Games facilities in Delhi (1982)
• Workers were paid Rs.5-7 per day when the statutory minimum wage was Rs.11 per day
• Workers engaged through contractors who pocketed the difference between government rates and actual payment
• Workers were migrant labourers from impoverished regions with no bargaining power
• Contractors argued workers had "freely accepted" the lower wages

Issues

1. Whether payment below statutory minimum wage violates Art.23 (prohibition of forced labour) of the Constitution
2. Whether Art.23 operates only against the State or also against private employers
3. Whether economic compulsion vitiates "free consent" to accept below-minimum wages

Held

• Payment below minimum wage IS "forced labour" within the meaning of Art.23
• Art.23 is not limited to traditional bonded labour or physical coercion; it includes economic coercion
• When a person provides labour for less than minimum wage, the labour in excess of what the minimum wage would command is "forced"
• Art.23 operates HORIZONTALLY: it protects citizens not only against State action but also against exploitation by private individuals and entities
• The fact that workers "agreed" to lower wages is irrelevant because poverty vitiates consent; a starving person's "choice" to accept exploitative terms is no choice at all

Ratio Decidendi

The minimum wage represents the constitutional floor of labour value. Any payment below it constitutes extraction of forced labour regardless of apparent consent. Art.23 creates an absolute prohibition that applies to both State and private actors. Poverty-driven "consent" is constitutionally meaningless because duress of economic necessity negates free will.