RANI BIBI vs NOOR KHAN and 6 others
This habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner for the recovery of alleged detenues from the illegal and improper custody of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 at a brick kiln. Pursuant to a court order, a bailiff raided the premises and successfully recovered the detenues from locked quarters. The core legal question concerned the alleged illegal detention and forced labor of the detenues at the brick kiln. The Lahore High Court held that if the detenues do not wish to work at the respondents' brick kiln, they cannot be forced to serve against their will, as they possess the right to move freely and bonded labor is strictly prohibited. Consequently, the court set the detenues at liberty to go wherever they like and ordered the refund of the security amount deposited by the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that forced or bonded labor is unconstitutional and prohibited, and individuals retain the fundamental right to freedom of movement and cannot be compelled to work against their will.
- Can individuals be forced to work at a brick kiln against their will?
- What is the legal status of bonded labor in light of the constitutional rights to freedom of movement?
- How should a court dispose of a habeas corpus petition when detenues are recovered from alleged illegal custody at a brick kiln?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.---This habeas petition has been filed by the petitioner for the recovery of detenues mentioned in the head-note of the petition from the alleged illegal and improper custody of respondents Nos.1 to 6.
2. In compliance with the order of this Court dated 23-5-2006, the bailiff with the police assistance has raided at the bricks kiln of respondents Nos.1 to 6. Two out of three quarters were locked from outside and on the identification of the petitioner, he has recovered the alleged detenues. In the meanwhile, a person namely Nazir Masih came there. On asking of the bailiff, he told that he is Chokidar of the bricks kiln and owners of the bricks kiln were not available there. On query, he denied the blocking of the quarters. Further stated that the bricks kiln is not in a working condition.
The owners of the bricks kiln used to visit the same off and on.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 6 has vehemently opposed the report of the bailiff contending that the bricks kiln of the respondents was not in a working condition for the last about 20 days. It is a concocted story of the petitioner.
4. Be that as it may, if the detenues do not want to work at the bricks kiln of respondents Nos.1 to 6, then no one can force them to serve against their will as they have the right to move freely and the bonded Labour is prohibited in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Darshan Masih v. The State (PLD 1990 SC 513). Therefore, the detenues are set at liberty to go wherever they like. The security amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner.