The Supreme Court has made it clear that rescuing a person from bonded labour is only the beginning of the State’s responsibility. Financial assistance promised under the rehabilitation scheme must ordinarily reach rescued workers within seven days of the issuance of their release certificates, the Court has ruled.
Emphasising the urgency of rehabilitation, the Court observed that delayed financial support defeats the very purpose of the scheme. People freed from bonded labour often have no independent means of earning a livelihood and remain exposed to the risk of further exploitation.
“Financial assistance intended to address immediate needs loses much of its purpose when its disbursement is delayed for months or years,” the Court observed, stressing that constitutional responsibilities towards bonded labourers do not end with their release.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued a series of directions to strengthen the implementation of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and the Central Sector Scheme for Rehabilitation of Bonded Labourers.
The Union Government has been directed to ensure consistent implementation of the revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), issued on May 14, 2026, across the country. All States and Union Territories have been given six months to comply with the directions.
The Centre must also prepare supplementary guidelines in consultation with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) within three months.
Nearly three-year wait for rehabilitation assistance
The ruling came in two writ petitions concerning the identification, rescue, release and rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
One of the cases arose after Surendra Manjhi and several other workers were rescued from a brick kiln in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district on February 28, 2019.
The workers, who belonged to Bihar, had allegedly been brought to Uttar Pradesh on the promise that they would work to repay bonded debts. Instead, they were subjected to exploitative working conditions.
Although they were rescued, repatriated to Bihar and issued release certificates, the promised financial assistance did not reach everyone promptly.
Manjhi received his rehabilitation assistance only in 2022, almost three years after his rescue.
The petitioners told the Court that 42 workers had been issued release certificates, but only 25 had received the immediate financial assistance of Rs 20,000 each. The remaining 17 were still waiting for payment.
The Supreme Court directed Uttar Pradesh and Bihar to jointly verify the status of assistance payable to these 17 workers within one month.
Any outstanding amount found payable must be released as quickly as possible, preferably within three months and no later than six months.
Complaints must be verified within 24 hours
To prevent delays at the initial stage itself, the Court prescribed strict timelines for handling bonded labour complaints.
Complaints should ordinarily be verified within 24 hours, with rescue operations undertaken promptly wherever necessary.
Once bonded labour is identified, the competent authority must conduct the required inquiry without delay. A release certificate should ordinarily be issued within 24 hours of the determination that a person is engaged in bonded labour.
The Centre has also been asked to introduce a uniform format for release certificates, which must be recognised by every State and Union Territory.
The Court said administrative differences between States should not create obstacles for rescued workers seeking rehabilitation benefits.
It further stressed that statements of rescued labourers must be recorded with appropriate safeguards. Release certificates and details of rehabilitation entitlements should be provided in languages they can understand.
Special care and sensitivity must be exercised in cases involving children.
States cannot use administrative hurdles to deny benefits
The Court highlighted the difficulties faced by workers rescued outside their home States. Poor coordination between authorities often leads to delays in issuing release certificates, transferring records and processing rehabilitation assistance.
Such administrative complications cannot become a reason to withhold benefits from rescued labourers.
The Court made it clear that a worker’s entitlement to rehabilitation cannot depend on differences in State procedures or jurisdictional arrangements.
The State where the rescue takes place must ensure that the necessary steps are taken to secure the worker’s rehabilitation, rather than allowing coordination gaps to leave vulnerable individuals without support.
The judgment reinforces a crucial principle: freedom from bonded labour must be accompanied by meaningful rehabilitation. Without timely financial assistance and effective administrative support, rescued workers risk falling back into the very conditions from which they were freed.