CURRENT AFFAIRS | 17 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RELEVANT AREA
India has formally informed the US Trade Representative (USTR) that it has ratified both ILO Forced Labour Conventions — C29 of 1930 and C105 of 1957 — directly refuting US “forced labour” charges in its Section 301(b) trade probe. The Commerce Ministry simultaneously pushed back on the USTR’s allegation of “structural excess capacity”, pointing out that India’s goods-export-to-GDP ratio of roughly 12 per cent is small compared with China’s surplus.
This is one of those rare news stories where a single fact (the ratification of two ILO conventions) sits at the intersection of constitutional law, international law, and trade law — and is therefore exactly the kind of passage CLAT 2027 examiners love. Expect questions on Article 23, Article 253, treaty implementation, and the PUDR (1982) / Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) line of cases.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits “traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour” — it is a justiciable Fundamental Right under Part III, binding the State and private persons alike.
Article 24 prohibits employment of children below 14 in any factory, mine or other hazardous occupation. The two Articles together form the constitutional anti-slavery code.
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 operationalises Article 23, defining and abolishing the bonded-labour system and establishing Vigilance Committees.
PUDR v UoI (1982) — the Asiad Workers’ case — held that paying less than the statutory minimum wage amounts to “forced labour” under Article 23. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v UoI (1984) extended this to bonded labourers in Faridabad stone quarries.
Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws to implement treaties and international conventions, irrespective of subjects being in the State List — the route by which India domesticates ILO conventions.
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
Section 301 of the US Trade Act 1974 empowers the USTR to investigate foreign trade practices deemed “unreasonable or discriminatory” and to recommend retaliatory tariffs. Of India’s defences, the ratification of ILO C29 and C105 is the strongest rebuttal.
- PUDR (1982) widened the definition of “forced labour” — any payment below the statutory minimum wage counts. This is broader than the common-sense definition and a recurring CLAT trap.
- The ILO’s 10 Fundamental Conventions cover forced labour (C29, C105), child labour (C138, C182), discrimination (C100, C111), freedom of association (C87, C98), and occupational safety (C155, C187). Know them.
- Treaty ratification ≠ self-executing law in India. Parliament must legislate under Article 253 — a dualist, not monist, system.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Provision / Case | Import |
|---|---|
| Article 23 | Prohibits trafficking & forced labour (Fundamental Right) |
| Article 24 | Prohibits child labour below 14 in hazardous work |
| Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976 | Statutory abolition of bonded labour |
| PUDR v UoI (1982) | Below minimum wage = forced labour under Art 23 |
| Bandhua Mukti Morcha (1984) | Bonded labourers in quarries; systemic directions |
| ILO C29 (1930), C105 (1957) | Forced Labour / Abolition of Forced Labour conventions |
| US Trade Act 1974, Sec 301 | USTR authority to investigate and retaliate |
Mnemonic: FORCED
Foreign trade probe (Section 301) · Old conventions (C29, C105) · Ratified both · Constitution Article 23 · Excess capacity claim rebutted · Defence to USTR
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
Track the next USTR hearing on 28 April 2026 — India’s oral submission is expected to lean heavily on its constitutional and ILO ratification record. Attempt the quiz above and compare your score with the CLAT Gurukul benchmark.
