Several High Courts across the country have ruled that denying wages at rates prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 amounts to a violation of constitutional protection against forced labour. The Kerala High Court held that prisoners should be paid wages in accordance with the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Additionally, the court rejected the request to deduct the cost of food and clothing from these wages. Similarly, the Gujarat High Court upheld the same principle, ruling that prisoners are entitled to fair wages under the Act. Following this decision, the State Government of Gujarat challenged the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, leading to the present case.
Issues before the Court
The main question in this case is whether prisoners who are required to work as part of their punishment must be paid wages according to the rates set under the Minimum Wages law. The issue revolves around whether forced prison labour should be treated like regular employment and whether inmates performing such work are entitled to the same legal protections and fair wages as free citizens.
Arguments:
It was contended that when hard labour is imposed as a lawful part of a prisoner’s punishment, it should be viewed similarly to a typical employer-employee relationship. If this analogy holds, then prisoners should be entitled to the same legal and social benefits as free workers outside the prison system. Furthermore, Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution explicitly protect individuals from exploitation, with a complete ban on forced labour—a term closely associated with begar (unpaid labour). Given this constitutional safeguard, it was argued that prisoners, like any other workers, have a right to wages under Article 21.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog].
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Analysis of the Court
The Court ruled that prisoners sentenced to rigorous imprisonment can be lawfully made to perform hard labour, regardless of their consent. However, other prisoners may voluntarily opt for work if they make a formal request. A key aspect of the judgment was the recognition that prisoners should receive equitable wages for their labour. To ensure fairness in wage determination, the Court directed the State Governments to establish a wage fixation body to recommend appropriate pay rates. Until the government made a final decision, prisoners were to be paid wages at rates fixed by the State, taking into account the Court’s observations.
Another important directive was the recommendation that a portion of the wages earned by prisoners should be set aside as compensation for victims. This could be done either by paying the victims directly, through a common fund, or any other effective method the government deemed appropriate.
A significant aspect of this judgment is its victim-centric approach, which aligns with victimology—a field of study focusing on the rights and needs of crime victims. The Court identified two types of victims: direct victims, who suffer harm due to the crime, and indirect victims, such as dependents of the direct victims who face financial hardship. The Court endorsed restorative justice, which shifts the focus from mere punishment to restitution and reparation, ensuring that offenders work to compensate victims and contribute positively to society.
Concluding Remarks
This decision is noteworthy because it acknowledges both the rights of prisoners and the suffering of victims. It marks a shift in sentencing policy by emphasizing victim welfare and ensuring that prisoners are treated with dignity, particularly regarding fair wages for their labor. This judgment reflects a broader movement towards balancing rehabilitation, victim compensation, and restorative justice in the criminal justice system.
