ORDER

A letter addressed to this Court complaining about prevalence of bonded labour system in Cutton, Anagpur and Lakkaarpur areas of Faridabad District.in Haryana State wherein the stone quarries workers are living in most inhuman conditions, was treated as a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. This Court appointed two Advocates as Commissioners to inquire into the working conditions of the stone quarry workers with particular reference to the cases mentioned in the writ petition. This Court finding the necessity of an in-depth investigation into social and legal aspects of the problem also appointed Dr. S. B. Patwardhan and Mr. Krishan Mahajan to study the working conditions prevailing in the various quarries within the Faridabad district with particular reference to violation. of provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976 and Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment Conditions of Service) Act. The Commissioner furnished- their report to the Court on 28th of June, 1982.

2. Several questions were raised before the Court apart from merit of the dispute; the important ones being (i) whether an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution as maintainable, particularly when no allegation of infringement of petitioners fundamental right was made; (ii) whether a letter addressed to the Court could be treated as a writ petition and be proceeded with in the absence of support by affidavit of verification; and (iii) whether the Court had power to appoint Commissioners or an investigative body to inquire into allegations made in the petition and by affidavits and require reports to be made to the Court for facilitating exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 302 of the Constitution.

3. The concept of public interest litigation had not then adequately developed and its concours sufficiently delineated; the practice of accepting letters as a foundation for a writ petition had not also been clearly established; in writ petitions the practice of appointing Commissioners of investigating agencies had not been precedented; the traditional concept of defence of locus standi had not been wiped away notwithstanding the decision in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365.

4. A 3-Judge Bench heard the matter at considerable length and each of them delivered a separate judgment. Though the main judgment was delivered by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) and Justice A. M. Sen concurred with it by a separate judgment and Pathak, J. (as he then was) while concurring with Bhagwati, J. on some issues gave his own views. The judgment of the Court was pronounced on 16th of December, 1983 (1984) 3 SCC 161:

5. This Court dealt with various aspects of the problem; referred to available literature on material aspects; took into account the information collected by Advocate-Commissioner and the report made by Dr. Patwardhan. The Court also took note of the position that the Presidential Ordinance of 1975 for abolition of bonded labour and the subsequent parliamentary legislation in 1976 were seeking to implement the mandate of Art. 23 of the Constitution but while statutory provision had been made, taking into account the fact that the pernicious practice of bonded labour had prevailed in this country for centuries; the then current social atmosphere had been tolerating this practice without any serious objection; the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the majority being poor it became convenient for the owners of property and wealth to exploit the poor and in India a social change opposed for the purpose of ensuring implementation to traditional methods was difficult to implement, the Court did not treat the writ petition as disposed of by its judgment and the application survived for further monitoring.

6. In paragraphs of the judgment of Bhagwati, J. with, whom on that aspect the other two learned Judges agreed, it was said (AIR 1984 SC 802, Para 40):

"We accordingly allow this writ petition and