Youth Does Not End With Childhood, Legal Protection Shouldn't Either.

Kailash Satyarthi, Nobel Laureate of 2014 and founder of Bachpan Bachao Andolan may finally be coming close to realising his dreams. In another step towards protection of children from exploitation, the government has come up with an amendment to the erstwhile Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

So what was the need for such an act in the first place?

With the increase in exploitation of children and the rising disapproval of it, the state had to take measures. The objective of the act was to bring uniformity in the concept of ‘child’ and regulate work conditions of such children. It is the duty of the state to make sure that children receive education and go to schools instead of work in accordance with the Right to Education Act.

As per the act set out in1986, a ‘child’ can be defined as an individual under 14 years of age. As spelt out clearly in the Act, such children could not be employed in workplaces with “hazardous” conditions such as mining, factories, dockyards, jobs involving crossing train tracks; in totality 18 industries have been listed under this category.

What’s the most fundamental change brought about?

The Parliament has decided to amend the name of the act, changing it to Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, instead.This amendment was brought forth to bring adolescents under its protection. An adolescent is defined as an individual between the ages of 14 to 18 years. According to the amendment, it is the children and adolescents who are prohibited from working in hazardous conditions.

However, there is a new provision regarding the hazardous conditions in relation to adolescents and things need to be sufficiently clear in this list to make sure that this law is well-rounded and serving its purpose. Though, it is a great move to have brought this section of people under its protection, it is empirically difficult to determine whether an industry is hazardous or not. . It is easy to use child labour in hazardous settings and deem it as non-hazardous. For example, if an adolescent works in supplying or selling side of the firework-producing factory, would that be hazardous or not?

Why create a completely new category called ‘adolescents’?

A question that arises here is why there is a need to create a separate category called ‘adolescents’ when we could just add them to the ‘child’ category. The thing is we cannot legally do that. According to the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) 138^th Convention which India has ratified, the minimum age of admission to employment cannot be less than the age of completion of compulsory schooling (which according to RTE Act is 14 years).

In simple terms, in a country, if the compulsory education can only be attained by 14 years of age, one cannot  work before becoming that old. If it absolutely bans labour up to 18 years of age, then what happens to individuals falling between the age group on 14-18 years who are done with compulsory education, do not have funds for continuing and cannot start earning either?If the term ‘child’ is used to include individuals till 18 years of age, then the state would have to provide compulsory education up to that level, which it is unable to at present.

Has any change been brought about in respect to ‘children’?

There is no bar on children working after school or during vacations in family owned and oriented businesses as long as they are not  mentally and physically exhausting and not for commercial purposes. This is being done to increase their chances at gaining technical and organisational skills.

Thisis rather open to interpretation. To what level can a child be stretched mentally and physically? It is easier said than done to follow the clause that says that children can only work after school or during vacation. Also, as household work is included in family oriented employment; more girl children will be pulled out of schools.

This sends a wrong message to the people that India has pretty much legalised child labour again, which technically  is not  the case. It is a popular notion that with this amendment there will not be enough compulsion for children to be sent to school. It is also believed that if loopholes are found and children are exploited for commercial purposes, it will lead to increase in child trafficking.

Is there something innovative about this amendment?

A commendable thing about this amendment is that it addresses the controversial issue of children working in the audio/visual industry and the physical and mental trauma attached to it. It acknowledges the fact that child performers cannot be withdrawn from the entertainment industry. However, it has introduced a clause including rules and regulations that will have to be strictly followed in case of underage entertainers. Children’s employment in circuses is still banned.

What is going to deter people from engaging in this crime?

The Parliament believes that making the penalty, for engaging in child labour employment, stricter will discourage people from doing so. Parents, even though won’t be penalised for the first violation, would certainly be so for the subsequent ones. Employers, however, would be penalised in the first go itself. The penalty has increased from Rs. 20, 000 to Rs. 50, 000 with a prison term of minimum 1 year and maximum of 3 years.

In conclusion, I would say that even though quite a few controversial issues have been acknowledged, there is a lot of room for interpretation which could be taken advantage of. If these gaps are not filled up properly, it is going to turn the process of modernisation back with all the progress that India had made in the field of literacy and education come to a standstill.

-Ipshita Dey.

A The InfoMission Project Writer.