The State's apathy towards migrant workers - a flagrant violation of Article 21

During the course of the week, we have seen multiple controversial decisions being taken with respect to stranded migrant workers, who have faced severe difficulties during the course of the lockdown. In this post, we shall draw a common thread between these decisions, and establish that they violate the migrant workers’ rights of autonomy, choice and dignity, which are integral facets of the ‘right to life and personal liberty’ conferred by Article 21.

Let us start by enlisting the decisions that have been taken by the government, as well as the Courts:

[I]. The Karnataka government cancelled the special trains that were being arranged to ferry migrant workers back to their native states. This was after a meeting with the real estate builders lobby, with the Chief Minister of the State himself stating that as there was a need to revive the economy – ‘unnecessary travel’ of migrants need not be resorted to. After severe criticism, this decision has been reversed.

[II]. As we discussed in our earlier post, many states charged migrants for their train travel back home. This was because of the prevailing confusion after the Ministry of Railways decided that it would cover only 85% of the cost of the train, and the rest would be borne by the State Governments. Over the course of the previous two days, the problem has been rectified to a certain extent, as certain State Governments such as Delhi have agreed to cover the cost.  

[III]. Before casting all the blame on the state, it is pertinent to note that even the Courts have pronounced verdicts that have been detrimental to the rights of migrant workers. Yesterday, the Orissa HC ordered that only those migrant workers who have tested negative for Covid-19 would be allowed to enter the State from outside. Such a decision only erodes the dignity of the migrants further, as there is no clarity on which State Government had the obligation to conduct these tests, and how such large-scale testing can be arranged at one go. Although this decision has been stayed by the Supreme Court, it aptly reflects the apathy shown by the Government and the Courts.

Although the three decisions referred to above have been partially or wholly reversed, it is important to keep note of the common thread between them, as similar decisions may be taken in the near future. This common link is the apathy that the State has shown (along with Courts such as the Orissa HC) towards the plight of the migrant workers - where its decisions have only exacerbated the sufferings of the migrants.

This also reflects that on many occasions, the sufferings of the poor are directly perpetrated by state action, and that such suffering is not always linked to the state’s failure to act. An analogy can be made here with the slum demolition programs that we have witnessed over the years in cities such as Mumbai and Delhi, where under the garb of ‘beautifying’ the city, the State has evicted slum dwellers on the ground that they are illegal encroachers on public land. This forceful eviction only increases their plight, when they lose their source of shelter and are not rehabilitated by the State. Akin to slum dwellers, the State has treated migrant workers as a burden, and a ‘hurdle’ towards managing the Covid-19 pandemic. 

It is pertinent to recall here that the migrant workers were left stranded because the Central Government announced a nationwide lockdown without giving the migrants any window to travel back to their home states. While the migrants were left stranded due to the Central Government’s lack of foresight, their suffering has continued as the State has failed to provide them with universal access to food and basic sustenance income during the lockdown period - where they have lost their means of livelihood.

Based on our discussion above, let us analyze how the State has breached its negative as well as positive obligations under Article 21, while dealing with migrant workers. As the Supreme Court has held in decisions such as Francis Coralie Mullin, the term ‘life’ under Article 21 does not imply a mere animal existence, and includes a right to live with dignity. Furthermore, as held in subsequent decisions such as Puttuswamy I - choice, autonomy and human dignity are integral facets of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Decisions such as cancelling trains for migrant workers, and making them pay for their train tickets in a situation where they have been separated from their families and have lost their source of income violates their right to live with dignity. Furthermore, throwing hurdles towards the return of these migrant workers to their native state also goes against their personal choice and autonomy to decide whether they want to stay back and work in a State, or go back home. When the State does not provide transport facilities, the migrants are forced to walk thousands of kilometres on foot to reach their native states, which is another impingement of their right to live with dignity. 

Although the Karnataka Government reversed it's decision regarding cancellation of trains, it is pertinent to note that such incidents may be repeated in the near future. For instance, it has been reported that multiple Chief Ministers have told the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister that they would prefer if the migrants from UP do not return back home. This is because migrant workers are a cheap source of labour for States that are looking to reopen their economies in the Green and Orange Zones.

But, not giving migrant workers a meaningful choice between going back home and staying back to work offends their personal autonomy and human dignity under Article 21, in a situation where they have been estranged from their families under the lockdown. Instead of the State making this choice on behalf of the migrant workers, it is the migrant workers who should be given the autonomy to make this choice. While we have discussed how state action has violated the migrant workers’ rights under Article 21, let us recall that the state’s failure to act and provide income support and nutrition to the migrant workers also goes against Article 21 – by depriving them of their right to food and social security.

The State’s handling of stranded migrant workers has hence been in flagrant violation of multiple facets of Article 21. While economic recovery and fiscal prudence are legitimate state objectives, such objectives cannot be achieved by infringing civil rights, and by violating the dignity and autonomy of the migrant workers, who have suffered the most under the lockdown.