Policy document
Child Labour: Chasm between aspirations and reality
Samreen Fatima ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-sonnet-5-5This legislative note looks at India's Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act of 1986 and its 2016 amendment. The amendment prohibits employment of children under 14 but allows them to help in family businesses after school. It also shortens the list of hazardous processes and occupations. The author argues that the law looks progressive but has flaws and internal conflicts that may expose child and adolescent workers to exploitation and affect children's rights to learn, play and grow.
Key points
- The 1986 Act was passed on 23 December 1986 to prohibit children's engagement in certain employments and regulate working conditions.
- The amended act was passed by Rajya Sabha on 20 July 2016 and prohibits employment of children below 14 years, except in family business after school.
- Reducing the list of hazardous processes and occupations is likely to affect children's rights to learn, play and grow.
- Section 3 (2) (a) of the amended act is said to conflict directly with section 3 (1).
- The note says other provisions have gaps that expose both adolescent and child workers to exploitation.
Limitations
The document is a short abstract of a legislative commentary, so it gives no data on how the law is applied or on actual outcomes for children. It does not evaluate an intervention.
Abstract
The Government of India has passed several legislations to safeguard the rights of the child workers and to protect them from exploitation by their employer. An act to prohibit the engagement of children in certain employments and to regulate working conditions was passed on 23rd December 1986 as Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act,1986. The act was later amended and was passed by Rajya Sabha on 20th July 2016 regulating the working conditions of the young persons and completely prohibiting engagement of children below 14 years in any employment except that of the family business after school. Allowing children under 14 years to help in the family business and limiting the scope of the definition of “hazardous” by reducing the list of hazardous processes and occupations, is likely to affect children’s rights to learn, play and grow. Section 3 (2) (a) of the amended act is in direct conflict with section 3 (1), where the latter prohibits the engagement of children in any employment the former promotes. The enunciation of any law is meaningless if proper observance of that percept of law is not forthcoming. Further, a detailed study of the act reveals lacunae in various other provisions which exposes both adolescent workers and child workers to exploitation. The present legislative note addresses the core issues in the amended law which looks progressive at glance but suffers from flaws.