Right Against Exploitation & Freedom of Religion — Articles 23–28 — KSLU Notes

Right against Exploitation — Articles 23 & 24

Freedom on paper means little if a person can still be trafficked, forced to work for nothing, or sent down a mine as a child. Articles 23 and 24 attack exploitation directly — and, like Article 17, they bite against private exploiters, not only the State.

Freedom from forced labour and child labour

Article 23 prohibits traffic in human beings, begar (forced labour without payment) and all forms of forced labour; any contravention is an offence. Crucially, the courts have held that paying less than the minimum wage amounts to “forced labour”, because economic compulsion is still compulsion (People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India, 1982 — the Asiad Workers case).
Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below 14 years in any factory, mine or other hazardous employment.

Both rights are available against the State and private individuals.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — wages below the minimum

Facts. A State-owned company pays workers less than the minimum wage after taking their labour; which Fundamental Right is violated?

Rule. Paying below the statutory minimum wage is forced labour under Art 23 (PUDR / Asiad Workers).

Apply. The workers’ economic compulsion to accept sub-minimum wages is a form of “forced labour”, so Art 23 is attracted (and, being State, Art 14 too).

Conclusion. Article 23 is violated; the workers are entitled to at least the minimum wage.

Article 23(1), Constitution of India: “Traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.”

In Simple Terms: no trafficking, no unpaid forced labour, and paying below the minimum wage counts as forced labour too.

flowchart TD
    EX["Right against exploitation"]
    EX --> A23["Article 23"]
    EX --> A24["Article 24"]
    A23 --> T["No traffic in human beings"]
    A23 --> B["No begar / forced labour"]
    A23 --> MW["Below minimum wage = forced labour (PUDR)"]
    A24 --> C["No child below 14 in factory/mine/hazardous work"]

Case Laws

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Union of India (1982) — below-minimum wage is “forced labour” under Art 23.
M.C. Mehta v State of Tamil Nadu (1996) — directions against child labour; enforcement of Art 24.

Secularism & Freedom of Religion — Articles 25-28

India is not anti-religion; it is secular — the State has no religion of its own and treats all faiths with equal respect. But “freedom of religion” is not a blank cheque: it stops where public order, health, morality and other people’s rights begin. The examinable tension is always the same — where does the right to practise a faith meet the State’s power to regulate?

Four articles, one secular scheme

Articles 25-28 together guarantee religious freedom in a secular State:

Article 25 — freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, health and the other Fundamental Rights. The State may also regulate secular activities associated with religion and provide for social reform.
Article 26 — freedom for every religious denomination to manage its own religious affairs, own and administer property.
Article 27 — no person can be compelled to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion.
Article 28 — no religious instruction in educational institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. Two doctrines run through this topic:
Secularism — the State has no religion and treats all equally; it is part of the basic structure (S.R. Bommai).
Essential religious practices — only practices essential to a religion get the highest protection; non-essential or harmful practices can be regulated (Shirur Mutt).

💡 EXAM TIP — freedom of religion is never absolute

The trap. Writing that Art 25 guarantees an unlimited right to practise.

What to write. Art 25 is expressly “subject to public order, morality and health” and the other FRs; the State may regulate secular activities linked to religion and press social reform. Then apply the essential-practices test.

Why it scores. Every religion problem is solved by pairing the right with its limits.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the church bell that never stops

Facts. A church bell rings once every hour, round the clock, in a residential area; residents complain of nuisance; the church claims a religious right.

Rule. Art 25 is subject to public order, health and morality; noise beyond permissible limits is not an essential religious practice and can be regulated.

Apply. Continuous night-time bell-ringing affects the health and rest of residents; regulating it does not deny the faith, only its excessive manifestation.

Conclusion. The church cannot claim an unqualified religious right; the nuisance may be restrained.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — challenging Talaq and polygamy

Facts. A Muslim woman challenges personal-law practices (Talaq, polygamy) as discriminating on the ground of sex.

Rule. A practice gets Art 25 protection only if essential to the religion; it must also yield to Arts 14/15 and public morality (Shayara Bano on triple talaq).

Apply. Instantaneous triple talaq was held not an essential practice and was struck down; practices that are arbitrary or discriminatory do not enjoy immunity.

Conclusion. Such a practice can be struck down; religious freedom does not shield an unessential, discriminatory practice.

Article 25(1), Constitution of India: “Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

In Simple Terms: everyone is free to hold, follow and spread their religion — but always within limits of public order, morality, health and others’ rights.

flowchart TD
    REL["Freedom of religion (Arts 25-28)"]
    REL --> A25["25: profess, practise, propagate"]
    REL --> A26["26: manage religious affairs"]
    REL --> A27["27: no tax to promote a religion"]
    REL --> A28["28: no religious instruction in State-funded schools"]
    A25 --> LIM["Subject to public order, morality, health + other FRs"]
    A25 --> ESS["Essential-practices test (Shirur Mutt)"]

Case Laws

[C-15] Commissioner, HRE v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt) (1954) — essential religious practices doctrine.
[C-2] S.R. Bommai v Union of India (1994) — secularism is part of the basic structure.
Rev. Stanislaus v State of MP (1977) — the right to “propagate” does not include a right to convert by force/inducement.
[C-8] Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) — instantaneous triple talaq struck down.
[C-11] Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1986) — sincere religious belief protects a student who does not sing the National Anthem.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All CL-I topics