Behind every number is a child whose education, health, and childhood are being sacrificed for economic survival. India’s Constitution guarantees free education and prohibits child labour. The laws exist. The commitments have been made. But implementation remains the missing link. The promise of childhood cannot remain confined to constitutional text. It must be visible in classrooms, not on streets.
Zainab Jahan Ara
A few months ago, while walking through a busy market, I noticed a young boy selling pens to passersby. He could not have been more than ten or eleven years old. With a small bundle of pens in his hand, he approached people one after another, hoping that someone would make a purchase. What struck me was not merely that he was working, but that he was working at an age when he should have been sitting in a classroom, learning alongside children his own age.
That brief encounter stayed with me. It reminded me that child labour is not an abstract statistic discussed in reports and policy documents. It is a lived reality visible on our streets, in markets, workshops, farms, and homes. Behind every number is a child whose education, health, and childhood are being sacrificed for economic survival.
This reality is why 12 June is observed globally as the World Day Against Child Labour. Introduced by the International Labour Organization (ILO) in 2002, the day serves as a reminder that despite legal prohibitions and international commitments, child labour continues to deprive millions of children of education, health, and dignity.
The international community has long recognised child labour as a violation of fundamental human rights. ILO Convention No. 138 establishes minimum age requirements for employment, while ILO Convention No. 182 calls for the immediate elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including slavery, trafficking, forced labour, and exploitation in illicit activities. Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) guarantees protection from economic exploitation, and Article 4 requires governments to devote maximum available resources to protecting children’s rights.
Yet the problem remains widespread. According to the ILO and UNICEF, nearly 160 million children worldwide are engaged in child labour, with approximately 79 million involved in hazardous work. These are not merely statistics; they represent millions of interrupted childhoods and unrealised futures.
According to the Census of India 2011, more than 10 million children between the ages of 5 and 14 were engaged in labour. While recent interventions have reduced the numbers in some sectors, child labour continues to exist in both visible and hidden forms across the country.
India’s constitutional framework strongly opposes child labour. Article 21A guarantees the fundamental right to free and compulsory education for children between six and fourteen years of age. Article 24 prohibits the employment of children below fourteen years in factories, mines, and hazardous occupations. Articles 39(e) and 39(f) further direct the State to ensure that children are protected from abuse and are provided opportunities for healthy development.
These constitutional safeguards are supplemented by legislation. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016, prohibits the employment of children below fourteen years and restricts adolescents from hazardous occupations. The Right to Education Act, 2009, seeks to ensure access to schooling, while the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides mechanisms for the rescue and rehabilitation of children found in exploitative labour situations.
Critics have also pointed out that the 2016 amendment permits children to assist in family enterprises after school hours. While intended to preserve traditional family occupations, the exception has generated concerns that it may be misused to conceal child labour under the guise of family work. Effective monitoring, therefore, remains essential.
However, the existence of laws alone has not eliminated the problem. Child labour persists because its roots lie deeper than legal provisions. Poverty remains one of the strongest drivers. For many struggling families, a child’s income may represent the difference between survival and hunger. Weak educational infrastructure, school dropouts, social acceptance of child work, and demand for cheap labour further perpetuate the cycle.
The COVID-19 pandemic exposed these vulnerabilities even more sharply. With schools closed and family incomes disrupted, many children were pushed into work to supplement household earnings. For thousands of children, what began as temporary employment during the crisis became a permanent interruption of their education.
Child labour is not only a human rights concern but also a major obstacle to sustainable development. Recognising this, the international community included the elimination of child labour within Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.7, which calls upon nations to eradicate child labour in all its forms. Progress in education, poverty reduction, gender equality, and economic growth remains closely linked to the success of efforts aimed at protecting children from exploitation.
The situation is particularly concerning because child labour is not merely an economic issue; it is a constitutional and developmental issue. A child engaged in labour is often denied education, healthcare, and opportunities for personal growth. The consequences extend beyond the individual child. An economy that relies on child labour sacrifices future productivity, skilled human capital, and sustainable development.
The judiciary has repeatedly emphasised the seriousness of this issue. In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996), the Supreme Court directed employers found engaging child labour to contribute compensation and stressed the importance of rehabilitation and education for rescued children. Similarly, in Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011), the Court reaffirmed the State’s responsibility to identify, rescue, rehabilitate, and educate children engaged in labour. These decisions recognise that ending child labour requires more than punishment; it requires restoring childhood.
In Jammu and Kashmir, child labour often remains hidden within the informal sectors. Children may be found assisting in handicrafts, carpet weaving, small workshops, domestic work, roadside businesses, or seasonal tourism-related activities. Such work is frequently overlooked because it occurs within family-based or informal settings, making detection and enforcement more difficult.
Addressing child labour requires a comprehensive strategy. Legal loopholes must be closed, and enforcement strengthened. Families need economic support so that sending children to school becomes a realistic choice rather than a financial burden. Rehabilitation programs must accompany rescue operations. Businesses must ensure child-labour-free supply chains, and communities must actively monitor school attendance and child welfare.
Most importantly, society must reject the normalisation of child labour. Too often, child labour is viewed as a practical necessity or a way of teaching responsibility. While children may assist families in limited and safe ways, no child should be forced into labour that compromises education, health, or development.
As the world observes the World Day Against Child Labour, the challenge is not the absence of laws or commitments. The challenge is implementation. The Constitution has already provided the vision: education instead of exploitation, dignity instead of deprivation, and opportunity instead of hardship.
Every child carrying bricks, washing dishes, weaving carpets, or selling pens represents a collective failure of society. The promise of childhood cannot remain confined to constitutional text and policy documents. It must be visible in classrooms, playgrounds, and opportunities available to every child. The true success of World Day Against Child Labour will not be measured by speeches or campaigns, but by the day when no child is compelled to choose work over education.
The writer is a law student
za**************@***il.com