The Supreme Court has directed that immediate financial assistance admissible to rescued bonded labourers should ordinarily be disbursed within seven days of issuance of their release certificates, subject to necessary verification. The Court held that assistance must not be withheld merely because an investigation or criminal proceeding remains pending, where the requirements of the applicable rehabilitation scheme are otherwise satisfied.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued nationwide directions on November 2, 2026, addressing identification, rescue, release, financial assistance and continuing rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Buy Now: 90+ Supreme Court Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026
The Court emphasised that securing physical freedom alone does not discharge the State’s constitutional obligation. Survivors must receive timely assistance and meaningful rehabilitation to prevent economic necessity from pushing them back into exploitation.
The proceedings arose from two petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, raising concerns over ineffective implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and the rehabilitation framework.
The first petition concerned Surendra Manjhi, who was rescued along with several other bonded labourers from a brick kiln in Shahjahanpur district, Uttar Pradesh, on February 28, 2019.
According to the judgment, the labourers 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. Following their rescue, they were repatriated to Bihar and issued release certificates.
However, Manjhi received immediate financial assistance only in 2022, nearly three years after his rescue.
A rejoinder before the Court stated that, of 42 labourers issued release certificates, only 25 had received immediate assistance of ₹20,000 each, while 17 continued to await payment. At the last hearing, counsel submitted that those 17 labourers remained unpaid.
The record also revealed coordination problems between States. Bihar highlighted instances where release certificates issued by Uttar Pradesh authorities did not follow the prescribed format, creating difficulties in processing rehabilitation assistance.
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional protection against exploitation under Article 23 alongside the right to life and dignity under Article 21. It also referred to Article 24, which protects children below 14 from employment in factories, mines and other hazardous employment.
The Bench explained that the 1976 Act abolishes bonded labour, extinguishes obligations arising from bonded debts and places implementation responsibilities on State governments, District Magistrates and Vigilance Committees.
Referring to Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reiterated that identification, release and rehabilitation are interconnected obligations.
A rescued person may remain without an independent livelihood and vulnerable to further exploitation. Financial assistance intended to meet immediate needs loses much of its purpose when payment is delayed for months or years, the Court observed.
The Court directed uniform implementation across the country of the revised Standard Operating Procedure dated May 14, 2026, referred to in the Union government’s compliance affidavit.
States and Union Territories must implement the SOP and comply with the Court’s directions within six months. The Union must issue necessary supplementary guidelines, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission, within three months.
The uniform procedure must provide for verification of bonded labour complaints ordinarily within 24 hours, followed by expeditious rescue wherever warranted.
Upon identification of bonded labour, the competent authority must undertake the necessary inquiry without delay and ordinarily issue a release certificate within 24 hours of that determination.
Statements must be recorded with appropriate safeguards. Release certificates and information about rehabilitation entitlements must be made available in a language understood by the rescued person.
The Union must also prescribe a uniform release certificate format recognised by every State and Union Territory.
The Bench distinguished rehabilitation of survivors from prosecution of those responsible for exploitation.
Criminal proceedings are necessary to enforce penal provisions and secure accountability. Immediate financial assistance, however, addresses the urgent needs of the person released from bondage.
Accordingly, assistance admissible under the rehabilitation scheme should ordinarily be paid within seven days of issuance of the release certificate, subject to necessary verification.
Pending investigation or criminal proceedings cannot, by themselves, justify withholding payment where the scheme’s requirements are otherwise fulfilled.
Authorities must also prepare an individual rehabilitation plan and initiate applicable rehabilitation measures within 90 days of rescue. The direction concerns initiation of those measures; it does not require every aspect of rehabilitation to be completed within that period.
The Supreme Court directed the Union government to take an appropriate decision within three months on proposed revisions to the rehabilitation scheme.
These proposals include enhancement of immediate financial assistance, simplification of procedures, clarification of responsibilities in inter-State cases and interim subsistence assistance where rehabilitation benefits are delayed.
The judgment does not itself increase the assistance amount or introduce a new subsistence payment. Until revisions take effect, disbursement remains governed by the applicable scheme.
The Court also clarified that the six-month implementation period does not affect existing statutory obligations or entitlements.
For cases involving inter-State rescue and repatriation, the rescuing State must ensure timely issuance and transmission of release certificates and relevant records. The receiving State must facilitate verification and rehabilitation.
Every State and Union Territory must designate a nodal officer and establish an effective inter-State coordination mechanism within six months.
The uniform procedure must clearly assign responsibility for disbursing immediate assistance. Disputes between States over that responsibility must not delay payments to eligible beneficiaries.
The Court stressed that differences in administrative practices or jurisdictional arrangements cannot obstruct a rescued labourer’s entitlement to assistance.
The Court separately directed Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to jointly verify the status of financial assistance payable to the 17 labourers rescued alongside Manjhi who were stated to remain unpaid.
Verification must be completed within one month. Any outstanding assistance found payable must be disbursed expeditiously, preferably within three months and, in any event, within six months of the judgment.
Authorities must also examine and address outstanding rehabilitation benefits under the applicable scheme.
States and Union Territories must ensure that district and sub-divisional Vigilance Committees are constituted and functioning under the Act. These committees must periodically review identification, release and rehabilitation.
Authorities must also ensure availability and effective utilisation of district-level rehabilitation funds.
The Union must ensure effective operation of the NAVJIVAN Portal to record and monitor identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation. States and Union Territories must regularly update relevant information.
State-level Monitoring Committees under the concerned Principal Secretary or Secretary must review implementation every month, giving particular attention to cases pending for more than a year and delays in financial assistance.
Confidentiality safeguards must protect rescued persons.
Every district must designate an officer to address grievances concerning non-issuance of release certificates, delayed assistance and rehabilitation benefits. Such grievances should ordinarily be resolved within 30 days.
District Magistrates must facilitate livelihood opportunities and access to benefits under existing Central and State welfare schemes.
District Vigilance Committees must periodically review rehabilitation for at least one year after release, focusing on reintegration and prevention of re-exploitation.
For children, authorities must comply with applicable child protection laws and facilitate education, medical care, counselling and other rehabilitation measures through procedures sensitive to their age and circumstances.
The Court also directed regular training for implementing officers, including police personnel and Vigilance Committee members, and prompt action to recover unpaid wages and other legally recoverable amounts.
Unjustified failures to discharge statutory obligations or comply with prescribed timelines must be examined by the appropriate supervisory authority for necessary action in accordance with law.
The Union must file a compliance affidavit within four months, explaining implementation steps, decisions on proposed scheme revisions and measures for uniform implementation of the SOP.
States and Union Territories must comply within six months and file their respective compliance affidavits within two weeks thereafter. These affidavits must disclose implementation status and reasons for outstanding deficiencies.
The Union must also submit a consolidated status report on compliance by States and Union Territories.
The Supreme Court kept both petitions pending and directed that they be listed after seven months to consider compliance reports and further directions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
