The Supreme Court on Monday held that rescued bonded labourers must be paid immediate financial assistance under the rehabilitation scheme ordinarily within seven days of issuance of release certificates, emphasising that delay in rehabilitation may effectively amount to denial of rehabilitation.

“The importance of timely rehabilitation cannot be overstated. A person released from bonded labour is often left without an independent source of livelihood and remains vulnerable to further exploitation. Financial assistance intended to address immediate needs loses much of its purpose when its disbursement is delayed for months or years”, the Court observed, emphasising that the constitutional obligation towards bonded labourers does not conclude with their release.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued a slew of directions to ensure uniform implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 and the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers.

The Court directed the Union Government to ensure uniform implementation throughout the country of the revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated May 14, 2026, and asked all States and Union Territories to comply with the directions within six months.

The Court also directed the Union Government to issue supplementary guidelines, in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), within three months.

The Court passed the judgment in two writ petitions concerning the identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers across the country.

The first petition arose from the rescue of petitioner Surendra Manjhi and several other bonded labourers from a brick kiln in Shahjahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh on February 28, 2019.

The labourers had allegedly been taken from their native districts in Bihar to Uttar Pradesh on the pretext of repayment of bonded debt and subjected to exploitative working conditions. Following their rescue, they were repatriated to Bihar and issued release certificates.

However, several labourers did not receive the immediate financial assistance contemplated under the rehabilitation scheme. Manjhi himself received the assistance only in 2022, nearly three years after his rescue.

The petitioners submitted that of the 42 labourers who had been issued release certificates, only 25 had received immediate financial assistance of Rs 20,000 each, while the remaining 17 are awaiting payment.

The Court directed Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to jointly verify the status of financial assistance payable to the 17 labourers within one month. Any outstanding assistance found payable must be disbursed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months and, in any event, within six months, the Court said.

The Court directed that complaints concerning bonded labour should ordinarily be verified 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 the release certificate within 24 hours of such determination.

The Court directed the Union Government to prescribe a uniform format for release certificates, which would be recognised by all States and Union Territories, so that differences in administrative requirements do not obstruct rehabilitation.

The Court further directed that statements of rescued labourers be recorded with appropriate safeguards and that release certificates and information concerning rehabilitation entitlements should be made available in a language understood by them.

It emphasised that particular sensitivity was required in cases involving children.

States cannot deny assistance over administrative differences

The Court observed that delays frequently arise when bonded labourers are rescued in a State other than their State of origin, due to inadequate coordination between authorities over issuance of release certificates, transmission of records and processing of rehabilitation benefits.

It held that the entitlement of a rescued labourer cannot be made dependent upon differences in administrative practices or jurisdictional arrangements between States.

The rescuing State must ensure timely issuance and transmission of release certificates and other relevant records, while the receiving State must facilitate verification and rehabilitation, the Court said.

The Court directed every State and Union Territory h to designate a nodal officer and establish an effective inter-State coordination mechanism within six months.

“No eligible bonded labourer shall be deprived of assistance on account of administrative differences between the concerned States,” the Court stated.

It further clarified that disputes between States regarding responsibility for disbursement of immediate financial assistance must not delay payment to eligible beneficiaries.

Criminal proceedings cannot delay rehabilitation assistance

The Court emphasised the distinction between rehabilitation of bonded labourers and prosecution of those responsible for their exploitation.

While criminal proceedings are necessary to enforce the penal provisions of the Act and secure accountability, immediate financial assistance is intended to address the urgent needs of persons released from bondage, the Court stressed.

Thus, the Court held that immediate assistance should not be withheld merely because investigation or criminal proceedings remain pending, provided the requirements of the applicable scheme are otherwise satisfied.

The Court also directed the Union Government to take an appropriate decision within three months on proposed revisions to the rehabilitation scheme, including enhancement of immediate financial assistance, simplification of rehabilitation procedures, clarification of responsibilities in inter-State cases and interim subsistence assistance where rehabilitation benefits are delayed.

Until the revisions are brought into effect, disbursement will continue to be governed by the applicable scheme, the Court said.

Monitoring and continuing rehabilitation

The Court directed all States and Union Territories to ensure that Vigilance Committees are duly constituted and functioning at district and sub-divisional levels in accordance with the Act.

The committees must undertake periodic reviews of identification, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers. States and Union Territories must also ensure availability and effective utilisation of district-level rehabilitation funds.

The Court directed the Union Government to ensure effective operation of the NAVJIVAN Portal for recording and monitoring identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers.

States and Union Territories must regularly update relevant information on the portal and establish State-level Monitoring Committees under the concerned Principal Secretary or Secretary to review implementation every month, the Court said.

The Court held that particular attention must be given to cases pending for more than one year and instances of delayed financial assistance.

Every district must designate an officer responsible for receiving and addressing grievances concerning non-issuance of release certificates, delayed financial assistance and rehabilitation benefits. Such grievances should ordinarily be resolved within 30 days.

The Court further directed authorities to ensure compliance with applicable child protection laws in cases involving children and facilitate access to education, medical care, counselling and other rehabilitative measures.

It also directed regular training and sensitisation programmes for officers responsible for implementing the Act and the rehabilitation scheme, including police officers and members of Vigilance Committees.

The concerned District Magistrates must facilitate access to livelihood opportunities and benefits under existing Central and State welfare schemes for released bonded labourers, the Court said.

District Vigilance Committees have to periodically review their rehabilitation for at least one year following release, with particular emphasis on preventing re-exploitation and ensuring effective reintegration into society.

State's obligation extends beyond physical rescue: Court

The Court observed that the prohibition of bonded labour is among the fundamental assurances of human dignity embodied in the Constitution, and emphasised that the obligation of the State extends beyond securing physical liberty to ensuring that such liberty is meaningful and accompanied by the means to lead a life of dignity.

Referring to Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that identification, release and rehabilitation must be understood as interconnected stages of a continuing constitutional responsibility.

It relied on its earlier decisions in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India and Neeraja Chaudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which recognised that mere liberation from bondage without adequate arrangements for rehabilitation would fail to secure constitutional guarantees.

The Court also observed that the principal concern in the case was 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 said.

The Court directed the Centre to file a compliance affidavit within four months, while all States and Union Territories must ensure compliance within six months and submit their respective affidavits within two weeks thereafter.

The Court directed the Union Government to place on record a consolidated status report regarding compliance by States and Union Territories.

The Court listed the matter after 7 months for monitoring compliance and further directions.