Supreme Court Directs Registration of Migrant Workers and Food Security Measures: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2020 (29 June 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 29 June 2021
Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2020
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and M.R. Shah, J.
Can the government ensure basic necessities for migrant workers during a pandemic? The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu action, addressed the severe hardships faced by migrant laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court directed both the Central and State governments to implement measures for food security and worker registration. This judgment highlights the critical need for a robust system to protect the rights of vulnerable populations during crises.

Case Background

The COVID-19 pandemic, which began in March 2020, led to a nationwide lockdown on 24 March 2020, causing a mass exodus of migrant laborers from their workplaces to their native places. This was due to the cessation of employment and fear of the pandemic. The Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance of the problems and miseries faced by these migrant laborers on 26 May 2020. Notices were issued to the Union of India and all States/Union Territories, directing them to report on the measures taken to address the situation.

Various affidavits were filed by the Central Government, States/Union Territories, and intervenors. The primary issues at the time were the transportation of migrant laborers to their native places, and ensuring they had access to food and shelter. The Court issued several directions on 28 May 2020 and 9 June 2020, emphasizing the need for efficient implementation of policies and schemes.

In April 2021, the second wave of the pandemic caused another wave of migration. An I.A. No.58769 of 2021 was filed, seeking directions for the distribution of dry ration, transportation, and community kitchens for migrant laborers. The Court issued interim directions on 13 May 2021, and further directions on 24 May 2021, focusing on providing dry ration and facilitating transport.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initiated the proceedings suo motu, taking cognizance of the widespread issues faced by migrant laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court issued notices to the Union of India and all States/Union Territories, directing them to file affidavits detailing the measures taken to address the crisis. Several intervenors also filed applications, bringing additional facts and suggestions before the Court.

The Court held multiple hearings, issuing interim directions to ensure immediate relief for the migrant workers. These directions included measures for transportation, food supply, and shelter. The Court also considered various legal provisions and welfare schemes aimed at protecting the rights of migrant laborers.

The proceedings culminated in the final judgment, which provided comprehensive directions to the Central and State governments for the welfare of migrant workers.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions and legislations during the proceedings:

• National Food Security Act, 2013: This Act aims to provide food and nutritional security. Section 3 ensures the right to receive food grains at subsidized prices for eligible households. The court noted that the Act mandates providing dry rations to those identified as beneficiaries.
  
  “3. Right to receive foodgrains at subsidised prices by persons belonging to eligible households under Targeted Public Distribution System.– (1) Every person belonging to priority households, identified under sub-section (1) of section 10, shall be entitled to receive five kilograms of foodgrains per person per month at subsidised prices specified in Schedule I from the State Government under the Targeted Public Distribution System…”
  
  “(2) The entitlements of the persons belonging to the eligible households referred to in sub-section (1) at subsidised prices shall extend up to seventy-five per cent. of the rural population and up to fifty per cent. of the urban population.”
• Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979: This Act regulates the employment and conditions of service of inter-state migrant workers. Section 1(4) specifies its applicability to establishments employing five or more inter-state migrant workmen. Section 2 defines “contractor” and “inter-state migrant workman”.
  
  “1(4) It applies- (a) to every establishment in which five or more inter-State migrant workmen (whether or not in addition to other workmen) are employed or who were employed on any day of the preceding twelve months; (b) to every contractor who employs or who employed five or more inter-State migrant workmen (whether or not in addition to other workmen) on any day of the preceding twelve months.”
  
  “2. Definitions.- (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (b) “contractor”, in relation to an establishment, means a person who undertakes (whether as an independent contractor, agent, employee or otherwise) to produce a given result for the establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such establishment, by the employment of workmen or to supply workmen to the establishment, and includes a sub-contractor, Khatadar, Sardar, agent or any other person, by whatever name called, who recruits or employs workmen; (e) “inter-State migrant workman” means any person who is recruited by or through a contractor in one State under an agreement or other arrangement for employment in an establishment in another State, whether with or without the knowledge of the principal employer in relation to such establishment;”
• The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996: This Act regulates the employment and conditions of service of building and construction workers. Sections 12 and 13 provide for the registration of building workers as beneficiaries and the issuance of identity cards.
  
  “12. Registration of building workers as beneficiaries:- (1) Every building worker who has completed either eighteen years of age, but has not completed sixty years of age, and who has been engaged in any building or other construction work for not less than ninety days during the preceding twelve months shall be eligible for registration as a beneficiary under this Act.”
  
  “13. Identity cards:- (1) The Board shall give to every beneficiary an identity card with his photograph duly affixed thereon and with enough space for entering the details of the building or other construction work done by him.”
• Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008: This Act provides for the social security and welfare of unorganized workers. Section 10 outlines the eligibility for registration and social security benefits.
  
  “10. Eligibility for registration and social security benefits.— (1) Every unorganised worker shall be eligible for registration subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions, namely:— (a) he or she shall have completed fourteen years of age; and (b) a self-declaration by him or her confirming that he or she is an unorganised worker.”

The Court also emphasized the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to live with human dignity and access to basic necessities like food.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be categorized as follows:

• Applicants/Intervenors:
  • Argued that migrant workers, especially those without ration cards, are entitled to dry ration. They cited the Central Government’s Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme during the first wave of the pandemic as a precedent.
  • Highlighted the non-implementation of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, and the lack of proper licensing of contractors, which deprives migrant workers of their benefits.
  • Raised concerns about the slow pace of registration of unorganized workers under the relevant Acts, which prevents them from accessing welfare schemes.
  • Emphasized the need for community kitchens to provide meals to migrant workers and those in need.
• Union of India:
  • Submitted that the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme was valid only for May and June 2020. However, the Central Government is ready to provide additional food grains to States under various schemes if requested.
  • Stated that the identification and distribution of dry ration to migrant workers is the responsibility of the respective States/UTs.
  • Acknowledged the delay in the development of the National Database for Unorganized Workers (NDUW) portal due to the pandemic but committed to finalizing it soon.
  • Affirmed commitment to providing additional food grains to states for distribution to migrant workers.
• State Governments:
  • Some States referred to existing schemes for providing dry ration to migrant workers, while others admitted to not having any such schemes.
  • Many States highlighted the measures taken to transport migrant workers to their native places.
  • Most States referred to providing food grains free of cost for two months i.e. May and June 2020.
  • Several States mentioned running community kitchens to provide meals to migrant workers.
  • Some states mentioned the direct bank transfer schemes to construction workers registered under the 1996 Act.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The applicants/intervenors innovatively argued for the extension of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme, highlighting the need for continuous support for migrant workers, especially those without ration cards. They also brought to the fore the non-implementation of the 1979 Act and the lethargy in registration of unorganized workers.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Entitlement of dry ration by migrant workers who are not covered by the National Food Security Act, 2013 and who do not possess a ration card.
2. The implementation of “One Nation One Ration Card” by States and Union Territories.
3. Coverage of Rural and Urban population under National Food Security Act, 2013.
4. The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, its working and implementation.
5. The registration of unorganized workers:
   • Under the legislations namely the 1996 Act and 2008 Act and the steps taken by different State Governments in the above regard.
   • The project – National Database for the Unorganised Workers (NDUW) of Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India.
   • The mechanism to ensure access by migrant labourers to different welfare schemes of the Central Government and the State Governments.
6. Community Kitchen for Migrant Labourers by States/Union Territories.
7. Direct Bank Transfer to unorganized workers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed each issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed the issues raised by the applicants/intervenors and the submissions made by the Union and State Governments.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Human Dignity and Right to Life: The Court emphasized that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses access to basic necessities like food. This was a major factor in directing the provision of dry rations and community kitchens.
• Vulnerability of Migrant Workers: The Court recognized that migrant workers are particularly vulnerable, especially during the pandemic, due to their lack of access to welfare resources. This understanding drove the need for immediate and comprehensive measures.
• Need for Effective Implementation of Welfare Schemes: The Court noted the gap between policy and implementation, highlighting the need for effective enforcement of welfare schemes and registration of workers.
• Constitutional Mandate for Social and Economic Justice: The Court reiterated the constitutional mandate to promote the welfare of the people by securing social and economic justice, especially for the weaker sections of society.
• Lethargy of the Ministry of Labour and Employment: The Court strongly disapproved of the Ministry’s lackadaisical attitude in not completing the module for registration of unorganized workers, despite previous directions.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Dry Ration: The Central Government was directed to allocate additional food grains as demanded by the States for distribution to migrant laborers. The States were directed to implement schemes for dry ration distribution by 31.07.2021, to continue until the pandemic ends.
2. “One Nation One Ration Card”: States that had not yet implemented the scheme were directed to do so by 31.07.2021.
3. National Food Security Act Coverage: The Central Government was directed to re-determine the total number of persons to be covered under rural and urban areas of the State under Section 9 of the Act.
4. Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act: All States/UTs were directed to register establishments and license contractors under the Act, ensuring compliance with the statutory duty to provide particulars of migrant workers.
5. Registration of Unorganized Workers: The Central Government was directed to finalize and implement the NDUW portal by 31.07.2021. Both Central and State Governments were impressed upon to complete the registration process by 31.12.2021.
6. Community Kitchens: States/UTs were directed to run community kitchens in prominent places for migrant laborers, to continue until the pandemic ends.
7. Direct Bank Transfer: The Court observed that direct bank transfer is a policy matter for the State, and no specific directions were issued. However, it was directed that if any person is entitled to direct bank transfer, they can avail the benefit as per the policy.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2020 is a landmark decision that addresses the plight of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court’s proactive approach, taking suo motu cognizance of the issue, demonstrates its commitment to protecting the rights of the vulnerable. The directions issued by the Court are comprehensive and aim to provide immediate relief and long-term solutions for migrant workers.

The judgment underscores the importance of effective implementation of welfare schemes and the need for a robust system to protect the rights of migrant laborers. The Court’s emphasis on the right to life with dignity and the constitutional mandate for social justice highlights its role as a guardian of the fundamental rights of all citizens.

Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court’s proactive role in protecting migrant workers’ rights.
• The importance of effective implementation of welfare schemes.
• The fundamental right to life with dignity includes access to basic necessities like food.
• The need for a robust system for registering unorganized workers.
• The constitutional mandate to promote social and economic justice.