Allahabad High Court Quashes Human Trafficking, Bonded Labour Act Case Against Wife Of Samajwadi Party MLA

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted relief to MLA Zaid Beg's wife, Seema Beg, as it observed that even if the prosecution material is taken at its face value, no prima facie case was made out under any of the invoked provisions.

Recently, the HC had stayed further proceedings in a sessions trial against Beg and his wife who are facing charges of suicide abetment linked to the case of their domestic help.

Case in brief

The FIR against Beg was lodged last year alleging that a minor girl had been found dead under suspicious circumstances inside her home.

During the investigation, another minor girl (about 15-year-old) was found working as a domestic helper in the same household. She was produced before the Juvenile Welfare Committee and subsequently sent to a protection home.

According to the FIR, the minor stated that she had been working in the house for two years without monetary remuneration, except the promise that the applicant would bear her marriage expenses.

It was also claimed by her that another minor girl (now deceased) worked there and received Rs. 2,000 per month, which was taken by her mother.

The FIR also alleged that the minors were scolded, beaten, not properly paid, kept in poor working conditions and were even exploited which constituted offences under the BNS, Juvenile Justice Act and Bonded Labor Act.

A separate FIR for the deceased girl's suicide was also registered under Section 108 BNS.

After the investigation, police filed a charge-sheet against Seema Beg and her husband under Sections 143(4), 143(5) BNS and 79 JJ Act along with Section 4 and 16 of Bonded Labour Act.

Challenging the cognizance order and the summons, Beg moved the HC.

Her counsel, Senior Advocate GS Chaturvedi submitted that allegations were false and vague and that none of the statutory ingredients of Section 143 BNS (human trafficking), Section 79 JJ Act or Bonded Labour Act were made out.

He argued that the minors were not trafficked for exploitation and were not recruited through threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, abuse of power or inducement. It was submitted that their family members had willingly sent them to work as domestic helpers.

He strongly argued that it cannot be said that a person who gives employment to a girl for domestic help has committed offence of human trafficking if there is no allegation that the girl was employed for exploitation

Regarding offence under the JJ Act, he submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 79 Juvenile Justice Act, it is necessary that a child must keep in bondage or employer withholds her earnings or uses his/her earnings for his own purpose.

However, he argued that in the present case there is no allegation that applicant kept the victims in bondage and there is also neither any allegation nor evidence that she withholds their earnings.

On the other hand, the State opposed the plea as it argued that employing minors, paying insufficient wages and treating them harshly constituted exploitation.

It was further argued that the circumstances suggested forced labour or 'Begar', which infringed fundamental rights of the minor under Article 23 of the Constitution of India as the victims were not being sufficiently paid by applicant and her husband.

Court's order and observations

At the outset, a bench of Justice Sameer Jain perused Section 143 BNS to note that to constitute the offence of Human Trafficking, the recruitment must be for the purpose of exploitation and it must be achieved through threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, abuse of power or inducement.

The Court, in its analysis, did not find that the prosecution material had demonstrated that the minors were recruited 'for exploitation'. The single judge also did not find elements of threats, coercion, abduction, fraud, abuse of power or inducement. Their family members had voluntarily placed them in domestic work.

It also noted that even though one minor received only Rs. 1K and the other no wages, the fact did not automatically amount to 'exploitation' as per BNS, particularly in the absence of any evidence of trafficking. Thus, it noted that ingredients of this provision were not made out.

On the allegations of infringing Article 23, the Court made a significant observation:

"…merely on the basis of Article 23 of Constitution of India a person on the basis of allegation of Begar cannot be either prosecuted or convicted unless and until in this regard there is any specific provision under any law in force. Offence under Section 143 BNS does not include Begar and it is only for trafficking of human beings and as already observed in view of this Court from the material available on record prima facie offence under Section 143 BNS is not made out against applicant".

Regarding the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court held that Section 79 is attracted only when a child is kept in bondage, or when earnings are withheld or used for the employer's own purpose. There was no such evidence, the HC noted.

Regarding the Bonded Labour Act, the Court found no allegation or evidence that the minors were compelled to render bonded labour.

Thus, the Court concluded that prima facie no offence under BNS, JJ Act and Bondage Labour Act was made out against the applicant.

Accordingly, the charge-sheet, cognizance order and entire proceedings were quashed and the application was allowed.