Child labour proviso challenge lapses; Supreme Court orders a special cell to monitor the Act
Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria close a 2009 NGO petition against the proviso to Section 3 of the child labour law and direct the second respondent to set up a special cell.
A writ petition filed in 2009 to strike down a proviso in India’s child labour law ended on 29 October 2026 without the Supreme Court ever ruling on the proviso. The bench said the prayer, as made, no longer survived for consideration because Parliament had since amended the Act.
What the court did instead was look forward. It directed the second respondent to constitute a special cell to monitor how the amended law is implemented, and to issue directions to enforcing agencies through the Chief Secretaries of the States.
An NGO’s challenge to a proviso
The petition, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 501 of 2009, was brought under Article 32 of the Constitution by Health for Millions, a non-governmental organisation. The order describes it as an organisation that claims to work for the betterment of the health of millions of marginalised people.
The respondents are the Union of India and others. The bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria heard the matter on 29 October 2026 and recorded its reasons in a signed order.
What the petitioner asked for
The petition challenged a few provisions of the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. The order reproduces the prayers (para 3).
The first sought a declaration that the proviso to Section 3 of the Act is ultra vires Articles 14, 21, 21A and 24 of the Constitution, read with Articles 39(e), 39(f) and 47.
The second asked the court to direct Respondent No. 1 to provide educational facilities and two mid day meals to such child workers. The third sought any other relief the court might deem fit.
The amended Act in front of the bench
Advocate Pranav Sachdeva appeared for the petitioner. He placed before the bench the amendments made to the 1986 Act and drew its attention to the changed statutory framework (para 4).
He also pointed to the obligation placed on the executive machinery that is entrusted with duties and functions under the enactment. The order does not set out the amendments themselves or say what the proviso to Section 3 now provides.
The Centre says the grievance is met
Advocate Hemadri Sharma appeared for the respondents. He stated that, with the amendment to the parent Act, the petitioner’s grievance is substantially attended to (para 5).
In the present, he said, the cause of action as set out in the writ petition does not survive. The order records no separate response from the petitioner to that statement.
Why the prayers were not decided
The bench took note of the writ prayers, the orders this court had passed earlier in the petition and the amendment to the parent Act. It concluded that the prayer, as made, did not survive for further consideration (para 6).
What remained, in its view, was giving complete and full effect to the changes introduced by Amendment Act No. 35 of 2016. The bench said it was persuaded not to examine the prayers as made.
It therefore did not decide whether the proviso to Section 3 violates the Constitution, and it said nothing on the claim for educational facilities and mid day meals.
A responsibility placed on the respondents
Taking note of the 2016 amendment, the bench placed a duty on the respondents. In its words, it is the “responsibility of the respondent(s) to ensure complete and strict compliance” with the mandate of the Act, including the amended provisions (para 6).
The order does not say which respondents are meant beyond the second respondent, and it does not name that respondent. It sets no deadline for compliance and fixes no date for a report back to the court.
Order
The bench said it was acting with a view to preserving the rights of children and adolescents. It directed the second respondent to constitute a special cell and to continue to monitor implementation of the provisions of the Act (para 7).
The second respondent must also issue directions to the enforcing agencies through the respective Chief Secretaries of the States, as the Act stands after Act No. 35 of 2016. The writ petition was disposed of, and pending applications, if any, were disposed of with it (paras 8 and 9).
The order is signed by Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria and is dated 29 October 2026 at New Delhi. The record of proceedings for the day lists Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Mr. Pranav Sachdeva among the counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., and Ms. Hemadri Sharma among those for the respondents.