"We will hold a meeting internally where we will discuss and look into the language of the proposed amendments of the Child Labour Amendment Bill," said Dattatreya.
He stressed that law gets made once and therefore it should be in the best interest to protect the children.
The national consultation convened to discuss the proposed
amendments to the Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 and Juvenile Justice Act have unanimously pointed out lacunae that can severely restrict the ability of child right organisations to rescue and protect children and called the proposed act "regressive" and "counter-productive".
"In India BBA has been responsible for rescuing 3022 children below 14 years, between January 2010 to December 2014 with the help of government agencies, police and judiciary. None of these children could have been rescued if the present act was to become the law. Though I appreciate the principle of prohibition on all child labour upto the age of 14 and employment in hazardous occupations upto 18 years, I suspect that with the serious grey areas, we will fail to abolish child labour through this proposed law," said Nobel laureate Kailash Satyarthi.
As per the report BBA has rescued 5254 child labourers
between January 2010 to December 2014 out of which 3022 were below 14 years while 2231 were in the age group of 14-17 years.
The data also showed while almost 1/5th of the total children rescued were working with their families, almost 82 per cent of the children were rescued from establishments operating in residential areas.
"This suggests that a change in law that permits employment of children in home based work may continue to support trafficking of children for forced labour since most manufacturing units operating out of residential areas could claim to be family enterprises," said Satyarthi.
Also, garment (zari), jute, plastic, rexin, cloth and footwear, bags, industries employ almost 50 per cent children, stated the report.
BBA has recommended that Child labour should be clearly defined in law as per the definition given by the Delhi High Court in BBA's case and extended for the entire country.
It also demanded removal of section 3 in the proposed Bill to prevent any abuse of law in the name of family, family enterprise or home based work and that list of hazardous occupation and processes should be expanded or least kept as it is.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
