Introduction
Imagine a twelve-year-old boy working at a roadside repair shop instead of sitting in a classroom. He may spend the entire day cleaning tools, carrying heavy objects or assisting the mechanic. At the end of the day, he takes home a small amount of money. That money may look insignificant to most people, but for his family it may pay for food, rent or medicine.
This is where the problem of child labour becomes more complicated than simply asking whether employing a child is illegal.
For the child, work may mean lost education and a lost opportunity to develop. For the employer, the child may represent cheap and easily controlled labour. For the family, however, the child’s earnings may sometimes represent survival.
This creates the central question of this article: If poverty pushes children into labour, can criminalising employers alone eliminate child labour?
India has developed an extensive legal framework to protect children. Article 24 of the Constitution prohibits the employment of children below fourteen years in factories, mines and hazardous employment. Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education for children between six and fourteen years. Articles 39(e) and 39(f) further require the State to protect children from exploitation and provide opportunities for healthy development.
The Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, as amended in 2016, strengthened this framework by broadly prohibiting employment of children below fourteen years, subject to statutory exceptions, and prohibiting adolescents between fourteen and eighteen from hazardous occupations and processes. The amended law also increased penalties for employers.
But the existence of a criminal provision does not automatically remove the economic conditions that produce child labour.
That is why child labour should be understood not merely as a crime, but also as a poverty, education and social-protection problem.
The Current Picture: What Do the Numbers Tell Us?
Statistics make the problem more concrete.
According to the 2011 Census, more than 10 million children aged 5–14 years were classified as working children in India, out of a child population of about 259.6 million in that age group. UNICEF India notes that this represented a decline of around 2.6 million compared with 2001.
However, these figures are old. There is currently no newer nationwide Census count that can simply be substituted for the 2011 figure.
At the global level, the most recent ILO–UNICEF estimates for 2024, released in 2025, found that approximately 138 million children were engaged in child labour worldwide, including around 54 million in hazardous work. The organisations also reported that child labour has fallen substantially since 2000, but the world failed to meet its target of eliminating child labour by 2025.
The statistics also reveal something important about the relationship between poverty and child labour. UNICEF and ILO identify poverty, inadequate social protection and limited access to quality education among the factors that can push vulnerable families towards child labour.
Therefore, the problem cannot reasonably be reduced to a simple equation:
Illegal employment → Punishment → Child labour disappears.
The reality is much more complicated.
Poverty: The Hidden Force Behind Child Labour
Poverty does not always directly force a child into labour, but it can create the conditions in which child labour becomes a survival strategy.
A family living on unstable wages may have to make difficult decisions every day. When there is not enough money for food, rent, healthcare and education, sending a child to work may appear to solve an immediate problem.
This does not make child labour acceptable. It helps explain why prohibition alone may not be sufficient.
Consider a family in which the father works as a daily-wage labourer and employment is irregular. The mother may have no independent income. There are three children in the family. If one child starts earning even a small amount, that income can reduce the immediate financial pressure.
If the government simply removes the child from employment but provides no educational, nutritional or economic support, the underlying problem remains.
The child may return to work somewhere else.
This is why poverty and child labour can form a vicious cycle:
Poverty → Child Labour → School Dropout → Lack of Skills → Low-Paid Employment → Adult Poverty → Next Generation of Child Labour
The real challenge is to break this cycle.
Criminalisation: Why It Is Still Necessary
Arguing that criminalisation is insufficient does not mean that criminal law is unnecessary.
It is important because employers must be held accountable when they exploit children.
The Child and Adolescent Labour law provides penalties for violations and establishes restrictions on the employment of children and adolescents. The 2016 amendment specifically strengthened the punishment framework and expanded protection.
Criminalisation performs several important functions.
1. It creates deterrence
An employer who knows that illegal employment can result in prosecution and punishment may think twice before employing a child.
2. It protects children from exploitation
The law gives authorities a basis to intervene where children are being unlawfully employed.
3. It places responsibility on employers
Poverty may explain why a family is vulnerable, but it does not justify an employer exploiting that vulnerability for profit.
4. It establishes a social standard
Criminal law communicates that children’s education, dignity and development are more important than commercial profit.
Therefore, criminalisation should remain an important part of the solution.
The difficulty begins when we expect it to be the entire solution.
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu: Punishment Plus Rehabilitation
One of the most important Supreme Court decisions on child labour is M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756.
The case concerned the employment of children, particularly in hazardous industries in Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court recognised the seriousness of child labour and issued directions concerning identification and withdrawal of children from hazardous employment.
Importantly, the Court did not stop at prohibition.
It directed measures including:
- identification of working children;
- withdrawal of children from hazardous employment;
- payment by offending employers into a welfare fund;
- alternative employment for an adult member of the affected family where possible;
- financial assistance to families;
- ensuring children’s education; and
- monitoring implementation.
This case is particularly relevant to the question posed by this article.
The Court effectively recognised that removing a child from work without addressing the family’s economic circumstances may not provide a sustainable solution.
The judgment therefore represents a broader model:
Prohibition + Accountability + Family Support + Education
rather than punishment alone.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India: Poverty Cannot Be Ignored
Another significant case is Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, particularly the Supreme Court’s 1997 proceedings concerning child labour in the carpet industry.
The case revealed extremely disturbing conditions in which children were being exploited in carpet weaving. A court-appointed investigation found hundreds of children working in the industry, including very young children. The Court recognised that poverty was an important factor driving children into labour.
The Court emphasised that effective elimination required more than simply imposing a ban. It called for measures involving education, healthcare, nutritious food and livelihood support and discussed the need for a progressive and practical approach to eliminating child labour.
The significance of the case is clear: law cannot be separated from the social circumstances in which exploitation occurs.
A child cannot meaningfully enjoy the right to education if the child’s family cannot afford food.
Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India: Children Are Not Commodities
In Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2011) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court dealt with the exploitation and trafficking of children into circuses.
The proceedings highlighted serious violations involving children who were allegedly trafficked and kept in extremely poor conditions, including deprivation of basic necessities and abuse. The Court’s intervention focused on protecting children and preventing their continued exploitation.
The case is significant because it demonstrates that child labour can overlap with other forms of exploitation, including trafficking, forced labour and abuse.
Therefore, the legal response sometimes needs to go beyond labour law and involve criminal law, child-protection law and constitutional remedies.
Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
In Labourers Working on Salal Hydro Project v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1984) 2 SCC 181, the Supreme Court dealt with exploitation of migrant labourers engaged in the Salal Hydro Electric Project.
Although the case was not exclusively a child-labour case, it is important in understanding the constitutional approach towards vulnerable workers.
The Court examined the exploitation of poor and migrant labourers and emphasised that constitutional and labour protections cannot become meaningless merely because workers are economically vulnerable.
The case helps demonstrate a wider principle relevant to child labour: economic vulnerability cannot be used as a justification for exploitation.
The Constitution Already Provides a Broader Solution
The Indian Constitution does not treat child protection as a criminal-law issue alone.
Article 21A – Right to Education
Education is perhaps the most important long-term alternative to child labour.
A child who remains in school has a greater opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills instead of entering low-paid and potentially exploitative work.
Article 24 – Protection Against Hazardous Child Labour
Article 24 directly protects children below fourteen from employment in factories, mines and hazardous employment.
Article 39(e)
The State must ensure that the health and strength of workers and the tender age of children are not abused.
Article 39(f)
Children should receive opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.
Together, these provisions show that the constitutional vision is not merely:
“Punish the person employing the child.”
It is:
“Protect the child, educate the child and create conditions in which the child does not have to work.”
Why Rescue Alone Is Not Enough
One of the biggest mistakes in dealing with child labour is to treat rescue as the final step.
Imagine that a child is rescued from a roadside workshop.
The child is taken away from the workplace.
A criminal case is registered.
The employer is prosecuted.
But what happens next?
If the child goes back to the same poor household without educational support, counselling, nutrition or financial assistance, the economic pressure remains.
The child may find another workplace.
This is why rehabilitation matters.
A meaningful rehabilitation process should look something like:
Identification → Rescue → Immediate Protection → Family Assessment → Education → Financial/Social Support → Rehabilitation → Long-Term Monitoring
This approach treats the child as a rights-holder, rather than merely as an illegal worker who has been removed from an establishment.
Education: The Most Important Long-Term Intervention
Education can change the economic calculation behind child labour.
When a child receives quality education, the child gains the possibility of acquiring skills and obtaining better employment later in life.
But simply enrolling children in school is not enough.
UNICEF’s 2024 research on child labour and schooling in India highlights that India has made substantial progress in school participation while gaps in attendance and completion continue to matter. The report also examines migration and the relationship between children’s work and schooling.
This is particularly important for migrant families.
A child whose family moves from one city to another in search of employment may repeatedly leave school. Such children can become particularly vulnerable to informal work.
Therefore, policies must address not only school admission but also school retention and continuity of education.
The Informal Economy: Where the Law Becomes Difficult to Enforce
Another reason criminalisation alone cannot solve child labour is the size and complexity of informal employment.
Child labour may occur in:
- small workshops;
- roadside establishments;
- agriculture;
- domestic work;
- family-based activities;
- small manufacturing units;
- construction-related activities; and
- other informal economic arrangements.
Such workplaces may not be as visible as large factories.
The Government itself describes its approach to child labour as involving legislative action alongside development programmes for families and project-based intervention in areas where child labour is concentrated.
This is significant because enforcement requires more than passing legislation.
It requires officials who can identify violations, institutions that can rescue children safely, courts that can deal with cases effectively and rehabilitation systems capable of keeping children out of the labour market.
What About the Family?
The family occupies a sensitive position in the child-labour debate.
It would be unfair to treat every poor parent as an exploiter simply because a child has started working. In some situations, parents themselves are struggling with unemployment, debt, illness or unstable income.
At the same time, poverty cannot become a blanket justification for making children work.
The law therefore needs to distinguish between vulnerability and exploitation.
The focus should be on:
- holding exploitative employers accountable;
- helping vulnerable families;
- ensuring children remain in school;
- providing social protection; and
- preventing children from returning to labour.
This is more likely to produce lasting change than treating every situation as a simple criminal-law problem.
The Employer’s Responsibility
There is another side of the problem that should not be ignored.
Businesses sometimes benefit financially from cheap labour. A child may be paid less than an adult and may have less bargaining power.
This creates a powerful economic incentive for exploitation.
Criminalisation therefore plays an important role in changing that incentive.
If the economic benefit of employing a child is greater than the perceived risk of punishment, the law may not create sufficient deterrence.
This makes effective enforcement essential.
A strong law that is rarely enforced may have considerably less practical impact than its text suggests.
What Should the Government Focus On?
A comprehensive strategy against child labour should combine several approaches.
1. Strong enforcement
Illegal employment should be identified and prosecuted.
2. Adult employment
Families need access to decent and stable employment opportunities so that children’s earnings are not treated as necessary household income.
3. Quality education
Schools must be accessible and capable of retaining children, including children from migrant and economically vulnerable families.
4. Social security
Families facing economic shocks should have access to appropriate welfare and social-protection mechanisms.
5. Rehabilitation
Children removed from labour should receive educational and other support rather than simply being returned to the circumstances that led them into work.
6. Monitoring
Rescue should not be treated as the end of government responsibility. Children should be monitored to reduce the risk of re-entry into labour.
7. Responsible businesses
Companies and contractors should ensure that their supply chains do not depend on child labour.
Is Criminalisation Alone Enough?
The evidence and judicial experience point towards a more nuanced answer.
Criminalisation is necessary, but criminalisation alone is insufficient.
A law can punish an employer after a violation occurs. But poverty, school dropout, unemployment and lack of social protection are conditions that exist before the violation occurs.
If those conditions remain unchanged, child labour can continue to reappear.
This is precisely why the approach reflected in M.C. Mehta and Bandhua Mukti Morcha is important. The Supreme Court connected prohibition with education, family support, rehabilitation and poverty-focused measures.
The objective should therefore be two-fold:
Prevent exploitation + remove the conditions that make exploitation possible.
Conclusion
Child labour is often discussed as if there are only two characters in the story: the child and the employer. In reality, there is a much larger story behind them.
There is a family struggling to survive.
There is an education system that may or may not successfully retain the child.
There is an employer looking for inexpensive labour.
There are enforcement authorities responsible for implementing the law.
And there is a child standing at the centre of all these competing pressures.
That is why criminalisation alone cannot eliminate child labour.
Punishment is necessary because children must be protected from exploitation and employers must be held accountable. But punishment cannot feed a poor family, educate a child, provide employment to parents or repair the years of education already lost.
The Indian constitutional framework itself points towards a broader solution. Article 24 prohibits certain forms of child employment, Article 21A guarantees education, and Articles 39(e) and 39(f) emphasise protection and healthy development. The Supreme Court’s decisions in M.C. Mehta, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, and Bachpan Bachao Andolan further demonstrate that child protection requires legal enforcement together with education, rehabilitation and social support.
