The Supreme Court has directed uniform implementation across the country of a revised Standard Operating Procedure for the identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers, observing that freedom from bondage cannot be secured by the act of rescue alone.

The Court laid down definite timelines, including verification of complaints and issuance of release certificates ordinarily within 24 hours, disbursement of immediate financial assistance within seven days of the release certificate, and preparation of an individual rehabilitation plan within 90 days of rescue. The Court kept the writ petitions pending to monitor compliance.

The Court reserved judgment on October 15, 2026. 

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh held, "The prohibition of bonded labour is among the most fundamental assurances of human dignity embodied in our Constitution. Freedom from bondage, however, cannot be secured by the act of rescue alone. Unless such freedom is accompanied by timely financial assistance and meaningful rehabilitation, those released from exploitation may find themselves compelled by economic necessity to return to the very conditions from which the law sought to protect them. The obligation of the State, therefore, extends beyond securing their physical liberty to ensuring that such liberty is meaningful, enduring and accompanied by the means to lead a life of dignity."


AOR Satya Mitra and AOR Srishti Agnihotri appeared for the Petitioners, while Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee appeared for the Respondents

Brief Facts of the Case

Two writs were filed raising concerns regarding the identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers across the country.

The first petition was instituted by Surendra Manjhi, himself a survivor of bonded labour, seeking enforcement of the constitutional and statutory obligations of the concerned authorities under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and the applicable rehabilitation scheme. 

The other one was instituted by the National Campaign Committee for the Eradication of Bonded Labour and others, raising broader concerns regarding the continued prevalence of bonded labour and the ineffective implementation of the statutory framework intended for its eradication.

The first petitioner was rescued along with several other labourers from a brick kiln in District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh. They had been taken from their native districts in Bihar on the pretext of repayment of a bonded debt and were allegedly subjected to exploitative working conditions. After the rescue, they were repatriated to Bihar and issued release certificates.

Despite their release, several labourers did not receive the immediate financial assistance contemplated under the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers. The first petitioner received such assistance only after nearly three years. Out of 42 labourers who had been issued release certificates, only 25 received immediate financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- each, while the remaining 17 continued to await payment.

During the pendency of the proceedings, this Court issued directions to the Union of India to formulate, in consultation with the States, Union Territories and the NHRC, a simplified procedure for issuance of release certificates and disbursement of immediate financial assistance. The Union of India thereafter filed a compliance affidavit placing on record a revised Standard Operating Procedure.

Observations of the Court 

The Court noted that the principal concern arising in these proceedings is not the absence of a statutory framework, but the difficulties encountered in its effective implementation. The constitutional prohibition against bonded labour and the statutory measures enacted to enforce it cannot remain mere assurances on paper.

"The release of a bonded labourer cannot be treated as the completion of the State's obligation when the conditions necessary for a life of dignity remain unfulfilled. Identification, release and rehabilitation must therefore be understood as interconnected stages of a continuing constitutional responsibility", the Court observed.

The Court further observed that the difficulties become more pronounced where labourers are rescued in a State other than their State of origin. The entitlement of a rescued labourer could not be made dependent upon differences in administrative practices or jurisdictional arrangements between States. A uniform procedural framework, prescribing definite timelines and clearly identifying the responsibilities of the authorities concerned, was necessary to ensure consistency and accountability.

It was observed that uniformity must extend beyond forms and procedures, and the process must be accessible to the persons for whose benefit it was established. Statements of rescued labourers were required to be recorded with appropriate safeguards, and information regarding release, entitlements and rehabilitation was required to be communicated in a language understood by them, with particular sensitivity where children were concerned.

The Court emphasised, "We must also emphasise the distinction between the rehabilitation of a bonded labourer and the prosecution of those responsible for the exploitation. Criminal proceedings are necessary to enforce the penal provisions of the Act and secure accountability. Immediate financial assistance, on the other hand, is intended to address the urgent needs of the person who has been released. Subject to the requisite identification and verification under the applicable framework, such assistance ought not to be withheld merely because investigation or criminal proceedings remain pending."

Directions of the Court

1. Uniform Implementation: The Union of India was directed to ensure uniform implementation throughout the country of the revised Standard Operating Procedure. All States and Union Territories were directed to implement the same and comply with the directions within six months. The Union of India was directed to issue supplementary guidelines, in consultation with the NHRC, within three months.

2. Identification and Release: The uniform procedure was to provide for verification of complaints ordinarily within 24 hours, followed by expeditious rescue where warranted, and issuance of the release certificate ordinarily within 24 hours of determination.

3. Financial Assistance and Rehabilitation: Immediate financial assistance was directed to be disbursed ordinarily within seven days of issuance of the release certificate, subject to verification. An individual rehabilitation plan was to be prepared and rehabilitation measures initiated within 90 days of rescue. Immediate assistance was not to be withheld merely because investigation or criminal proceedings remained pending.

4. Revision of the Rehabilitation Scheme: The Union of India was directed to take an appropriate decision within three months on the proposed revisions to the Rehabilitation Scheme, including enhancement of immediate financial assistance, simplification of procedures, clarification of responsibilities in inter-State cases and interim subsistence assistance. Until such revisions came into effect, disbursement was to continue under the existing scheme.

5. Inter-State Coordination: The rescuing State was directed to ensure timely issuance and transmission of release certificates and records, while the receiving State was directed to facilitate verification and rehabilitation. Every State and Union Territory was directed to designate a nodal officer and establish a mechanism for inter-State coordination within six months.

6. Outstanding Assistance to the 17 Labourers: The States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were directed to jointly verify the status of assistance payable to the 17 labourers rescued along with the first petitioner within one month, and to disburse any outstanding amount preferably within three months and in any event within six months. The authorities were also directed to address any outstanding rehabilitation benefits in accordance with the scheme.

7. Vigilance Committees and Rehabilitation Funds: All States and Union Territories were directed to ensure that Vigilance Committees were duly constituted and functioning at the district and sub-divisional levels, to undertake periodic reviews of identification, release and rehabilitation, and to ensure availability and effective utilisation of district-level rehabilitation funds.

8. Digital Monitoring and Accountability: The Union of India was directed to ensure effective operation of the NAVJIVAN Portal, and the States and Union Territories were directed to update the information regularly and constitute State-level Monitoring Committees under the Principal Secretary or Secretary concerned to review implementation every month, with particular attention to cases pending for more than one year and delayed assistance.

9. Protection and Rehabilitation of Children: In cases involving children, the authorities were directed to ensure compliance with applicable child protection laws and to facilitate access to education, medical care, counselling and other rehabilitative measures, in a manner sensitive to their age and circumstances and without avoidable delay.

10. Training and Enforcement: The States and Union Territories were directed to undertake regular training and sensitisation of officers, including police officers and members of Vigilance Committees, to ensure prompt recovery of unpaid wages and other amounts recoverable under law, and to have any unjustified failure to comply examined by the appropriate supervisory authority in accordance with law.

11. Continuing Rehabilitation: The District Magistrates were directed to facilitate access to livelihood opportunities and benefits under existing Central and State welfare schemes. The District Vigilance Committees were directed to review the rehabilitation of released bonded labourers for at least one year following release, with emphasis on preventing re-exploitation and ensuring effective reintegration.

12. Compliance: The Union of India was directed to file a compliance affidavit within four months, and the States and Union Territories were directed to ensure compliance within six months and file their respective affidavits within two weeks thereafter. The Union of India was also directed to place on record a consolidated status report.

Having regard to the gravity of the issues involved and the need for continued monitoring, the Court did not dispose of the writ petitions.

Both petitions were directed to remain pending for monitoring compliance, and were directed to be listed after seven months for consideration of the compliance reports and further directions.

Cause Title: Surendra Manjhi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1185]

Appearances:

Petitioners: Advocate on Record Satya Mitra, Advocate on Record Srishti Agnihotri, Advocate Kawalpreet Kaur, Advocate Vinod Kumar Singh, Advocate Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir, Advocate Neelesh Mani Tripathi, Advocate Anant Shukla, Advocate Abishek Jebaraj, Advocate Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advocate A. Reyna Shruti, Advocate Sambhav Gupta, Advocate Tara Elizabeth Kurien, Advocate D.p.singh, Advocate Anchal Kanthed

Respondents: Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, Advocate on Record Amrish Kumar, Advocate on Record Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate on Record Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate on Record Anand Shankar, Advocate on Record Rita Jha, Advocate on Record Dr. Vijendra Singh, Advocate on Record Vanshaja Shukla, Advocate on Record Jagjit Singh Chhabra and other advocates

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: