Which is the landmark case which expanded the scope of Article 23 of the Constitution of India?

Question

The concept of per se disqualification is unknown to the Constitution. Any decision as to the disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule must be taken after following the due process of law and the principles of natural justice. A member incurs disqualification only after adjudication by the Speaker. The procedure for the adjudication of disqualification petitions is prescribed under the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Ground of Defection) Rules 1986. The MLAs facing disqualification retain the right to participate in the proceedings of the House and vote on resolutions. Article 189(2) of the Constitution provides that any proceedings of the House are not invalid even if it is subsequently discovered that persons who were not entitled to participate or vote or otherwise take part in the proceedings, did so. In Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka and Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi, this Court observed that members should not be stopped from taking part in the proceedings of the House merely because disqualification proceedings were pending against them
Prior to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker’s enquiry as to the existence of a split within a political party was limited to a prima facie determination for deciding the disqualification proceedings. As a result of the deletion of Paragraph 3, the authority of the Speaker to form even a prima facie opinion regarding a split within a political party has been removed. Upon the deletion of Paragraph 3, the only defence for disqualification proceedings under the Tenth Schedule are that of a merge under Paragraph 4. The Election Commission of India is the sole authority empowered to decide disputes between rival factions of a political party according to the provisions of the Symbols Order.
[Extracted from Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023)]

Answer 1

Article 23 was written in broad, almost old-fashioned language, banning "forced labour" and "begar," terms that read naturally as covering only outright bonded labour or literal unpaid conscription of the kind that existed historically. For years, courts and litigants debated how far that language could stretch, since most modern exploitation does not look like classic bonded labour, it looks like ordinary daily-wage work where the worker is technically free to walk away but has no real economic choice to do so.

The turning point came when the Supreme Court was asked to consider workers employed on government construction projects who were being paid far below the minimum wage fixed by law. The Court reasoned that a person forced by poverty and lack of alternatives to accept work at less than minimum wage is not truly consenting in any meaningful sense, and that underpayment of this kind is itself a species of forced labour, since the worker is being coerced by economic circumstance rather than free choice. This reading pulled a huge range of everyday underpayment and exploitative labour arrangements within the protection of Article 23, something the earlier, literal reading of forced labour and begar never reached.

None of the other well-known cases in this area moved the boundary of Article 23 in this way, they each addressed separate labour or constitutional questions of their own, whether child labour rehabilitation, industrial standing orders, or workplace harassment guidelines, without touching the meaning of forced labour itself.

The single case responsible for this expansion of Article 23 is identifiable from that reasoning alone.
\[ \boxed{\text{PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235}} \]

Answer 2

Rather than recalling each case's general subject matter, a sharper test is to ask a narrower question of each option - does this case specifically enlarge what falls within Article 23's prohibition on forced labour, as opposed to merely being a labour-related judgment.

Option (A) - PUDR v. Union of India: This case answers exactly that narrow question, holding that underpayment below minimum wage counts as forced labour under Article 23. It does not merely apply Article 23 to new facts, it redefines the threshold for what counts as compulsion, which is what an expansion of scope actually requires.
Option (B) - M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu: This case is a strong labour-protection precedent, but it operates under child labour and constitutional directive principles concerning education and rehabilitation, not under Article 23's forced labour test. It does not redefine forced labour, so it fails the narrow test even though it is an important labour case.
Option (C) - Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut: This case interprets employer disciplinary powers and standing orders within industrial relations law. It has no engagement with Article 23's definition of forced labour at all, so it cannot satisfy a test asking specifically about that provision's scope.
Option (D) - Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: This case creates guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, filling a legislative gap using other constitutional articles, but it does not touch Article 23 or the concept of forced labour in any way, so it also fails this specific test.

Applying the narrow test of whether a case actually redefines forced labour under Article 23, only one option passes.

Therefore, the correct answer is PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235.

Answer 3

Rather than recalling each case's general subject matter, a sharper test is to ask a narrower question of each option - does this case specifically enlarge what falls within Article 23's prohibition on forced labour, as opposed to merely being a labour-related judgment.

Option (A) - PUDR v. Union of India: This case answers exactly that narrow question, holding that underpayment below minimum wage counts as forced labour under Article 23. It does not merely apply Article 23 to new facts, it redefines the threshold for what counts as compulsion, which is what an expansion of scope actually requires.
Option (B) - M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu: This case is a strong labour-protection precedent, but it operates under child labour and constitutional directive principles concerning education and rehabilitation, not under Article 23's forced labour test. It does not redefine forced labour, so it fails the narrow test even though it is an important labour case.
Option (C) - Glaxo Laboratories v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut: This case interprets employer disciplinary powers and standing orders within industrial relations law. It has no engagement with Article 23's definition of forced labour at all, so it cannot satisfy a test asking specifically about that provision's scope.
Option (D) - Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: This case creates guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, filling a legislative gap using other constitutional articles, but it does not touch Article 23 or the concept of forced labour in any way, so it also fails this specific test.

Applying the narrow test of whether a case actually redefines forced labour under Article 23, only one option passes.

Therefore, the correct answer is PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235.

Which is the landmark case which expanded the scope of Article 23 of the Constitution of India?

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Approach Solution -2

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in AIBE exam