Keeping KGBV Teachers on Contract for Years is Forced Labour Under Article 23

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News?

Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court decided Smt. Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2026). The Court held that continuing KGBV teachers on contract for years on low pay, with no step towards creating posts or regularising them, amounts to forced labour under Article 23. It directed the State to sanction posts, frame service conditions on par with regular teachers and consider regularisation claims within four months. 

What was the Background of Smt. Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. (2026) Case? 

About the KGBV Scheme: 

• The Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) Scheme was launched in 2004 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. 
• It provides residential schooling to girls from socially, educationally and economically backward sections in rural and remote areas. 
• It was later merged into Samagra Shiksha. 
• Teachers were first engaged through a selection process held under an advertisement dated 10th July 2009. Since then, they have been appointed on contract from year to year on an honorarium. 

About the Petitioners: 

• The petitioner in the leading writ petition has worked in a KGBV since 11th January 2010, on a contract renewed from time to time. 
• In the connected petition filed by Reeta Verma and 376 others, 270 petitioners had served for more than 10 years, and the rest for shorter periods. 
• Part-time teachers receive an honorarium of Rs. 12,790 per month. After a 25% EPF deduction, Rs. 9,592 is left in hand. 

Terms of Engagement under the Government Orders: 

• Teachers are engaged for 11 months and 29 days, with a one-day gap before the next academic year. 
• Contracts are not renewed if services are unsatisfactory or no longer required. 
• Services may be terminated on one month’s notice or, in extreme cases, without notice. 

Petitioners’ Contentions: 

• Most of the petitioners have crossed the age limit for entering any other service, and the State has exploited this vulnerability by denying them job security. 
• Their duties are similar to those of teachers governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, who receive statutory salaries and protection in State-run and aided schools. 
• Since the State set up these schools to discharge its obligation under Article 21-A read with the RTE Act, it must give reasonable service conditions to the teachers who help it do so. 
• By a Government Order dated 9th April 2026, the State raised the honorarium of:  
  • Shiksha Mitras and part-time instructors in primary and upper primary schools from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 18,000 per month. 
  • Part-time teachers from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 17,000 per month (payable for 11 months a year). 
• The petitioners’ own representation for Rs. 17,000 per month remained undecided. 

State’s Contentions: 

• No posts had been sanctioned for KGBV teachers. 
• The engagement was co-terminus with the scheme. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On the nature of the petitioners’ work: 

• The petitioners were appointed after a selection process. 
• Studies of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the National Education Policy, 2020 and the Ministry of Education’s framework for implementing Samagra Shiksha all recognise their role as similar in every respect to that of regularly appointed teachers in State-run and aided schools. 
• There was no material to show that their work was in any way different. 

On the plea that no posts existed and the engagement was co-terminus with the scheme: 

• The Court rejected this plea because:  
  • The scheme has run for over two decades. 
  • The work is perennial in nature. 
  • The State is obliged under Section 8(d) of the RTE Act to provide teaching staff. 

On the applicability of the RTE Act, 2009: 

• KGBVs fall within the definition of “school” under Section 2(n). 
• Section 7(1) makes funding a concurrent responsibility of the Centre and the States, but Section 7(5) makes the State Government responsible for providing funds to implement the Act. 
• Section 8 obliges the appropriate Government to:  
  • Provide teaching staff. 
  • Ensure good quality elementary education conforming to prescribed standards. 
  • Ensure that children from weaker sections and disadvantaged groups are not discriminated against. 

On discrimination against disadvantaged students: 

• Students in Government and aided schools are taught by well-paid teachers, while disadvantaged students in KGBVs are taught by ill-paid teachers working under insecure conditions. 
• The Court held this to be clear discrimination against the disadvantaged students studying in KGBVs. 

On the duties and protections of KGBV teachers: 

• Under Sections 23 to 28 of the RTE Act, KGBV teachers and teachers of other State-run schools have similar duties and obligations. 
• However, KGBV teachers do not get even the benefit of the proviso to Section 24(2), which requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing before disciplinary action. 
• Rule 20 of the RTE Rules, 2010 requires terms of service to be notified so as to create a professional and permanent cadre. No such rules have been framed for KGBV teachers, whose appointment, salary and service conditions are still governed by Government Orders. 

On the inadequacy of the honorarium: 

• The honorarium paid is even less than what is prescribed for semi-skilled workers. 
• The Court remarked that calling it an “honorarium” was a cruel joke. 

On the doctrine of purity of means: 

• Referring to Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court held that a laudable end does not justify unconstitutional means. 
• The end, namely the education of deprived students, especially girls, is laudable and has achieved considerable success, as reports of the Ministry of Education and NCERT show. 
• The means adopted, however, are not:  
  • Teachers have been paid inadequately. 
  • They have been denied any security. 
  • They have been continued for years on a low honorarium without any step towards regularisation. 
• Engaging teachers for 11 months and 29 days with a one-day gap, and providing that contracts will not be renewed if services are not required, even without notice, is inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution and violates the RTE Act. 

Conclusion on Articles 14 and 23: 

• Continuing the petitioners on contract for years without creating posts, absorbing them or paying them on par with regularly appointed teachers is a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23. 
• It violates the petitioners’ rights under Articles 14 and 23 in Part III and is inconsistent with the Directive Principles in Part IV. 

Directions issued: 

• Within four months, the State Government shall:  
  • Create posts of teachers for KGBVs in Uttar Pradesh, keeping in view the Schedule to the RTE Act. 
  • Frame service conditions for all KGBV teachers, including those who are not petitioners, on par with those for regularly appointed teachers up to the Intermediate level. 
  • Have regularisation claims against the newly created posts considered by the competent authority, having regard to qualifications and length of service. 
  • Revise the honorarium periodically to bring it on par with the salaries of teachers in its own and aided schools. 
• Until these steps are taken:  
  • All KGBV teachers, including the petitioners, shall be paid Rs. 17,000 per month from the date of the judgment. 
  • They shall be entitled to protection of their services under Section 24(2) of the RTE Act. 
• On funding:  
  • The Central Government is responsible for sharing the expenditure as agreed. 
  • The State cannot claim that the directions must await central funds. It may recover the central share on the principle of “pay and recover”. 
• The writ petitions were disposed of.

What is Article 23 of the COI? 

Article 23 – Prohibition of Traffic in Human Beings and Forced Labour: 

Text of the Provision: 

• Article 23(1): Traffic in human beings, begar and other similar forms of forced labour are prohibited. Any contravention of this provision is an offence punishable in accordance with law. 
• Article 23(2): The State may impose compulsory service for public purposes. While imposing such service, the State shall not discriminate only on grounds of religion, race, caste or class, or any of them. 

Key Features: 

• The right is available to both citizens and non-citizens. 
• It protects individuals against the State as well as private persons. 
• It places a positive obligation on the State to abolish exploitative practices such as human trafficking and other forms of forced labour. 

Practices Expressly Prohibited: 

• Traffic in human beings 
• Begar (compelling a person to work without payment) 
• Other similar forms of forced labour 

Exception – Compulsory Service for Public Purposes: 

• The State may require compulsory service for public purposes, such as military service or social service. 
• This power is subject to the bar on discrimination only on grounds of religion, race, caste or class. 

Case Law: 

• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982):  
  • The Supreme Court held that the scope of Article 23 is wide and unlimited. 
  • “Force” includes not only physical or legal force but also economic circumstances that compel a person to work against their will for less than the minimum wage. 
  • The Court directed the Government to take the necessary steps to punish private individuals who violate the fundamental right under Article 23.