Vodafone International Holding v UOI
- 2022-02-16
Citation: AIR 1984 SC 802
Bench : Hon’ble Justice N. Bhagwati; Hon’ble Justice S. Pathak; Hon’ble Justice Amarnath Sen
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the case: Bandhua Mukti Morcha is a social cause organisation approached the Supreme Court through a letter under Article 32 to request the Hon’ble Supreme Court to investigate the inhumane conditions in certain mines where a large number of people were working as bonded labourers. The Court took the letter as a writ petition and designated 2 inquiry commissions to ascertain the facts and circumstances alleged in the plaint.
Issue:
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that whenever a person is wrongfully or illegally deprived of his liberty, it is open for that person to move the court under Article 32. In its verdict, the court emphasized the significance of securing the rights to education, security and health. The court went on to include Right to live with human dignity to be a part of the fundamental rights provided under Part III of the Constitution. Legal provisions such as Article 21 (the right to life and individual freedom), Article 24 (denies work of children younger than 14 in plants, mines, or different dangerous ventures), Article 39 (e) (disallows constraining residents into employments unsuited for their age or quality), Article 39(f) (depicts the State’s obligations to shield youngsters from abuse and to guarantee kids the chances and offices to create in a sound way), and Article 45 (commands the State to give free obligatory training to all children beneath 14 years) were also referred by the Court.
While dealing with the issue of locus standi, the Court relying on the case of S. P. Gupta V. Union of India and Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union Case stated that the petitioner who complains of such violation may succeed in making case through PIL even though the petitioners fundamental right has not been infringed . It was also observed that Article 32 of the constitution does not provide procedure that ought to be followed. Moreover, it was noted that procedural law, though relevant, are subservient to the substantive law. Therefore, in exceptional cases such as the one in question, the Supreme Court may be moved by a letter or communication addressed to the Court.
The Court noted that Article 32(2) empowered the Court to make any directions, order or write for the preservation of fundamental rights and the provision is sufficient to appoint a fact-finding committee. Apart from the question of locus standi, the court dealt with the subject of bonded labour and defined it to be unconstitutional under Article 23. In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme Court also issued an order to release large number of labourers who were working in inhumane condition in stone quarries.
This case was instrumental in opening doors to the human rights jurisprudence of the country. Moreover, the verdict allowed such discrimination to be brought before the court by parties not directly affected by it in the interest of public.
