Seven days to pay, 24 hours to certify release: Supreme Court sets timelines for rescued bonded labourers
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh direct uniform rules for identification, release and immediate financial assistance across all States, and keep the writ petitions pending to monitor compliance.
The Supreme Court on 2 November 2026 ordered every State and Union Territory to follow a uniform procedure for identifying, releasing and rehabilitating bonded labourers. Immediate financial assistance must ordinarily reach a rescued person within seven days of the release certificate, and that certificate within 24 hours of the finding that the person was bonded.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the directions in two connected writ petitions under Article 32. The judgment, written by Justice Nath, is marked reportable.
The Court did not dispose of the petitions. It kept them pending to monitor compliance and listed them again after seven months.
A brick kiln in Shahjahanpur
The lead petitioner, Surendra Manjhi, is himself a survivor of bonded labour. He was rescued with other labourers from a brick kiln in Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, on 28 February 2019.
The labourers had been taken from their home districts in Bihar to Uttar Pradesh on the pretext of repaying a bonded debt. After the rescue they were sent back to Bihar and given release certificates.
Many then did not receive the immediate financial assistance contemplated by the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers. Manjhi got his only in 2022, nearly three years after the rescue.
His rejoinder said that 42 labourers had been issued release certificates but only 25 had received immediate assistance of Rs 20,000 each. The other 17 were still waiting.
Certificates in the wrong format
The record also showed trouble between States. Bihar pointed out that release certificates issued by authorities in Uttar Pradesh were not in the prescribed format, which stalled processing of rehabilitation assistance.
The Court noted that it had observed on 19 September 2022 that compensation payable could be released in the meantime. On 30 August 2024 it recorded submissions from the National Human Rights Commission on a concrete proposal for immediate assistance.
On 21 November 2024 it expressed serious concern at the number of rescued labourers left unpaid. It asked the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, to convene all States and Union Territories to frame a proposal on inter-State trafficking, release certificates and a simpler payment procedure, involving the NHRC.
A second petition joins
On 21 April 2026 the Attorney General placed a note on the Ministry’s steps and the state of the scheme. The Union filed a compliance affidavit on 15 May 2026, referring to a revised Standard Operating Procedure dated 14 May 2026.
Meanwhile, the National Campaign Committee for the Eradication of Bonded Labour and others filed Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 32325 of 2026. It sought uniform and enforceable procedures, State-Union coordination and mechanisms to monitor compliance.
The Court tagged it with Manjhi’s petition on 18 August 2026. Attorney General R. Venkatramani appeared for the Union, and Mr Abhishek Jebaraj and Ms Sanjana Grace Thomas for the petitioners.
The framework already exists
The judgment set out Article 23, which bars trafficking in human beings and forced labour, and Article 24 on child labour in hazardous work. Article 23, read with Article 21, it said, places a positive obligation on the State to protect people from exploitation.
The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 gives effect to those guarantees. Section 4 abolishes the system and frees every bonded labourer, and Sections 5 and 6 extinguish bonded debts and agreements.
Sections 10 to 12 make State Governments and District Magistrates responsible for enforcement and inquiry. Sections 13 and 14 create Vigilance Committees at district and sub-divisional levels to advise on implementation and help rehabilitate released labourers.
The Court relied on Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, and Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1984) 3 SCC 243. Those decisions, it said, treat identification, release and rehabilitation as interconnected obligations.
Rehabilitation delayed, rehabilitation denied
The principal concern, the Court said, was not the lack of a statutory framework but the difficulty of implementing it. Release cannot be treated as the end of the State’s obligation while the conditions for a life of dignity remain unmet, and the prohibition cannot remain:
“mere assurances on paper” (para 17)
Manjhi’s case, the bench said, illustrated the problem. Financial assistance meant for immediate needs loses much of its purpose when it arrives months or years late, and a released labourer without an independent livelihood remains vulnerable to further exploitation. The Court put it this way:
“rehabilitation delayed may, in substance, amount to rehabilitation denied” (para 18)
Uniform forms, in a language people understand
Rescues across State lines make delay worse, the Court said, because certificates, records and benefits pass between authorities that coordinate poorly. A rescued labourer’s entitlement cannot depend on differences in administrative practice between States.
It called for a uniform procedure with definite timelines and named responsibilities. Uniformity, it added, must reach beyond forms: labourers may not know the local language, so their statements need safeguards and information on release and entitlements must come in a language they understand. Children need particular sensitivity.
The bench also separated rehabilitation from prosecution. Criminal proceedings enforce the Act’s penal provisions, but immediate assistance meets urgent needs and, subject to identification and verification, should not be withheld because an investigation or trial is pending.
It added that the duties of District Magistrates and Vigilance Committees must come with monitoring, regular reporting and ways to address delay.
Article 32 without supplanting the executive
The Court noted the constructive way the case had proceeded. This was not adversarial litigation in the usual sense, it said, since petitioners, the Union and the States shared the aim of ending bonded labour.
It saw in that an illustration of Article 32: the jurisdiction is not confined to individual violations and may help remove systemic deficiencies that stop constitutional guarantees from being realised.
At the same time, primary responsibility rests with the authorities. The aim of intervention, the bench said, is to see that the framework works and not to supplant the executive, which is why it issued directions on uniformity, timely assistance, inter-State coordination and accountability.
Twenty-four hours and seven days
The Union must ensure uniform implementation of the revised SOP of 14 May 2026. All States and Union Territories must take the steps needed to implement it, and comply with the other directions, within six months.
The Union must issue supplementary guidelines in consultation with the NHRC within three months. The implementation period does not affect any existing statutory obligation or scheme entitlement.
On identification, complaints of bonded labour are to be verified ordinarily within 24 hours, followed by prompt rescue where warranted. The competent authority must inquire without delay and ordinarily issue the release certificate within 24 hours of determining that the person is bonded.
The Union is to prescribe one release-certificate format recognised by all States and Union Territories, so that differing requirements do not obstruct rehabilitation. Statements must be recorded with safeguards and papers supplied in a language the rescued person understands.
Immediate financial assistance under the scheme must ordinarily be paid within seven days of the release certificate, subject to verification. Authorities must prepare an individual rehabilitation plan and start rehabilitation measures within 90 days of rescue.
The Union must decide within three months on proposed revisions to the scheme. These include higher immediate assistance, simpler procedures, clearer inter-State responsibilities and interim subsistence assistance where rehabilitation benefits are delayed.
Nodal officers and the 17 unpaid
In cases that cross State lines, the rescuing State must issue and transmit release certificates and records in time, and the receiving State must help with verification and rehabilitation. Every State and Union Territory must designate a nodal officer and set up a coordination mechanism within six months.
No eligible labourer may lose assistance because of administrative differences between States. Responsibility for paying immediate assistance is to be assigned in the uniform procedure, and no dispute between States over it may delay payment.
For the 17 labourers rescued with Manjhi and said to be unpaid, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar must jointly verify their status within one month. Any amount found payable is to be paid preferably within three months and in any event within six months of the order.
Monitoring, grievances and children
States and Union Territories must ensure that Vigilance Committees are constituted and working at district and sub-divisional levels, and that they review identification, release and rehabilitation periodically. District-level rehabilitation funds must be available and used.
The Union must keep the NAVJIVAN Portal working to record and monitor identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation. States must update it and set up State-level Monitoring Committees under the Principal Secretary or Secretary, meeting monthly, with attention to cases pending over a year and delayed assistance.
Every district must designate an officer to receive grievances about missing release certificates, delayed assistance and rehabilitation benefits, ordinarily resolved within 30 days. The confidentiality of rescued persons must be protected.
For children, authorities must comply with child protection laws and provide education, medical care and counselling without avoidable delay. States must train officers, including police and Vigilance Committee members, and act promptly to recover unpaid wages.
Any unjustified failure to meet statutory obligations or timelines is to be examined by the appropriate supervisory authority. District Magistrates must help released labourers reach livelihood opportunities and welfare schemes, and Vigilance Committees must review their rehabilitation for at least a year after release.
Order
The Union must file a compliance affidavit within four months, covering steps taken, the decision on scheme revisions and uniform SOP implementation. States and Union Territories must comply within six months and file affidavits within two weeks after that, stating the measures taken, the status of implementation and the reasons for any outstanding deficiencies.
The Union must also place a consolidated status report on record. The writ petitions remain pending for monitoring, and the Court directed that they be listed after seven months.