Art. 24 states,

“No child below the age of fourteen years shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment.”

It complements the broader constitutional vision of dignity, health, safety and equal opportunity for young citizens. Article 24 does not prohibit the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any harmless or innocent work. It is enforceable against both, State authorities and private employers.

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, is the most important law in this direction; it prohibits employment of children below 14 years in 18 occupations and 65 processes. In addition, the Employment of Children Act, 1938; the Factories Act, 1948; the Mines Act, 1952; the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958; the Plantation Labour Act, 1951; the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1951; Apprentices Act, 1961; the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act, 1966; and other similar acts prohibit the employment of children below certain age.

In 1996, the Supreme Court directed the establishment of Child Labour Rehabilitation Welfare Fund in which the offending employer should deposit a fine of ₹20,000 for each child employed by him. It also issued directions for the improvement of education, health and nutrition of children. The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a National Commission and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights and Children’s Courts for providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights.

In 2006, the government banned the employment of children as domestic servants or workers in business establishments like hotels, dhabas, restaurants, shops, factories, resorts, spas, tea-shops and so on. It warned that anyone employing children below 14 years of age would be liable for prosecution and penal action.

The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, amended the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. It has renamed the Principal Act as the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Now, the Amendment Act prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in all occupations and processes. Further, the Amendment Act prohibits the employment of adolescents (14 to 18 years of age) in certain hazardous occupations and processes; and also introduced more stringent punishments for offenders.

Important Case Laws

  1. PUDR v. Union of India (1982) – In this case, the sub-contractors and the government authorities argued that child labour was not technically illegal at the Asian Games venues because “construction work” was not explicitly listed as a prohibited category under the then-active schedule of the Employment of Children Act, 1938. The Court ruled that Article 24 is an absolute, self-executing constitutional prohibition that does not depend on whether Parliament has passed a specific law listing a particular industry. The Court held that construction work, which involves working at great heights, lifting heavy loads, handling dangerous machinery, and mixing toxic concrete, is intrinsically and undeniably hazardous to a child’s life and health. Therefore, employing children under 14 at construction sites is a direct violation of Article 24, regardless of what the statutory omissions were.
  2. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) – This case is famously known as the ‘Sivakasi Child Labour Case’. In this case the court transformed child labour enforcement from a basic punitive model to a holistic, state-enforced socio-economic rehabilitation system under Article 24. The Court recognized that poverty is the main cause of child labour and that simply rescuing a child does not work if their family relies on their wages to survive. To create a real economic safeguard, the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of the Child Labour Rehabilitation-cum-Welfare Fund in every district across India. Any employer or factory owner found deploying a child under 14 in a hazardous occupation is hit with a mandatory fine of Rs. 20,000 per child. Where alternative employment for an adult family member cannot be secured, the appropriate govt. shall add Rs. 5,000 per child to the same fund. The principal sum remains locked in the fund, and the generated interest income is paid directly to the rescued child's family to substitute the child’s lost income, provided the family ensures the child goes to a regular school. The Court firmly linked Article 24 (Prohibition of Child Labour) with Articles 41, 45, and 47 (Directive Principles on Education and Health). The Bench ruled that once a child is pulled out of a factory, they cannot be left idle. The State has a non-negotiable duty to ensure the child receives free, compulsory foundational education in a regular school setup, helping break the intergenerational cycle of poverty.
  3. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) – In this case, the Court completely banned the employment of children in traveling circuses, establishing that exploiting minors for commercial entertainment violates the Right against Exploitation under Article 24. The Supreme Court ruled that forcing young children to perform dangerous balance tricks at great heights without safety nets is intrinsically hazardous to their life and development, violating Article 24. The Court ruled that confining children within circus tents strips them of their Fundamental Right to Education under Article 21A. A child working full-time in a traveling circus is permanently cut off from standard schooling, trapping them in an unconstitutional cycle of illiteracy. To protect children from systemic harm, the Court prohibited the employment of children under 14 years in all circuses nationwide.