Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Migrant Workers’ Rights During COVID-19 Lockdown

The case of In Re: Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers was a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Supreme Court of India to address the distressing situation of migrant workers during the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court took cognizance of media reports and public concerns over the plight of workers who were left stranded without jobs, food, or transport to return to their native places.

Background of the Case

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a nationwide lockdown in India starting from March 25, 2020. The lockdown severely impacted the livelihood of migrant workers, who, due to the sudden closure of industries and businesses, found themselves without employment and financial support. With no means of transportation, millions of migrant laborers started walking back to their home states, facing extreme hardships, hunger, and even fatalities.

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation and issued interim orders directing the Central and State Governments to take immediate measures to provide food, shelter, and transportation to the stranded workers.

Arguments by the Petitioners

Several senior counsels, including Kapil Sibal, Indira Jaising, Colin Gonsalves, and Jaideep Gupta, presented arguments on behalf of migrant laborers and organizations advocating their rights. Their main arguments were:

• The Government’s response was inadequate, and millions of workers were still stranded with no access to food, shelter, or transport.
• The registration process for migrant workers to avail transportation facilities was complicated and inaccessible to many illiterate laborers.
• The Supreme Court should direct the government to provide direct cash transfers and financial relief to all affected workers.
• States were not uniformly following the orders of the Supreme Court, leading to inconsistencies in relief efforts.
• There was a lack of clear information dissemination about trains and buses arranged for migrant transportation, causing confusion and hardships.

Arguments by the Respondents (Government and State Authorities)

The Central and State Governments, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, countered the claims with the following arguments:

• The Government had taken proactive steps by running over 4,228 Shramik Special Trains between May 1, 2020, and June 3, 2020, transporting over 57.22 lakh migrants.
• A total of 41 lakh migrants had been transported via road transport arranged by state governments.
• Food and ration were provided under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana, covering both registered and unregistered workers.
• More than 80% of the trains were directed towards Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, which had the highest number of returning migrants.
• The government had removed the requirement for consent from receiving states, which had previously delayed migrant movement.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court made the following key observations:

• “The condition of migrant workers is a matter of serious concern. They must not be left to fend for themselves in such unprecedented times.”
• “The delay in the provision of transport and essential supplies to migrants has led to severe hardships. State and Central Governments must act in a coordinated manner.”
• “All states must proactively identify stranded workers and ensure that no migrant is left without food, shelter, or transportation.”
• “The registration process must be simplified, and information regarding transportation should be widely disseminated through multiple media platforms, including TV, radio, and local newspapers.”

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directives:

• All states and Union Territories must complete the transportation of all stranded migrant workers within 15 days.
• The Ministry of Railways was directed to provide additional Shramik Special Trains within 24 hours upon request from states.
• The Central Government was directed to furnish details of all schemes available for migrant workers, including employment generation programs.
• Each state must establish counseling centers and help desks at the district and block levels to assist migrant workers in availing government benefits.
• A record of all returning migrant workers, including their skills and past employment, must be maintained at the village, block, and district levels.
• State governments were directed to consider withdrawing criminal cases registered against migrants for violating lockdown restrictions while traveling.
• Strict vigilance and supervision were to be ensured to monitor the implementation of welfare measures.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s ruling provided immediate relief to millions of stranded migrant workers. It ensured that:

• All migrants were provided a safe passage back to their homes.
• State and Central Governments worked together to expedite relief efforts.
• Accountability was established in the implementation of relief measures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case was a significant step in upholding the fundamental rights of migrant workers. By taking suo motu cognizance of their distress, the Court reinforced the constitutional principle that no individual should be left without state protection during a humanitarian crisis. The ruling also set a precedent for proactive judicial oversight in times of national emergencies, ensuring that government policies align with the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and justice.

Petitioner Name: Suo Motu Writ Petition.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 09-06-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Suo Motu Writ Petiti vs Union of India & Oth Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-06-2020.pdf