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

Step 1: Recall Article 23.
Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour and begar (unpaid forced work). The question asks which case widened what counts as forced labour.

Step 2: Identify the case.
The People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) v. Union of India case is the landmark that expanded the meaning of Article 23.

Step 3: What the Court held.
In PUDR, the Supreme Court said that paying a worker less than the minimum wage amounts to forced labour. The idea is that a person driven by poverty to work for less than minimum wage is effectively being forced, which Article 23 forbids.

Step 4: Why this expanded the scope.
Earlier, forced labour was read narrowly. PUDR stretched it to cover economic compulsion and underpayment, giving Article 23 a much wider protective reach for poor workers.

Step 5: Eliminate the others.
M.C. Mehta (Tamil Nadu) dealt with child labour, Glaxo Laboratories was a labour-court standing-orders matter, and Vishaka dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. None of these is the case that expanded Article 23 itself.

Step 6: Final pick.
The case that expanded the scope of Article 23 is PUDR v. Union of India.
\[ \boxed{\text{PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235}} \]

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

Show Hint

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Top Questions on Constitutional Laws

Questions Asked in AIBE exam