Introduction –
The contemporary global cosmetics industry represents an economic powerhouse defined by sophisticated branding, aesthetic innovation and high-margin luxury[1]. However, this industry relies fundamentally upon a mineral that remains largely invisible to the end consumer,Mica. As a naturally occurring silicate mineral, mica is prized for its unique reflective, shimmering, and heat-resistant properties, making it anuniversal ingredient in consumer products ranging from foundations and lipsticks to highlighters.[2] Beyond its aesthetic utility, mica serves as a critical insulator in high-performance engineering, electronics and the lithium-ion batteries essential for the global transition toward electric vehicles. Despite this brilliance in the finished product, the extraction of mica is frequently characterized by a systemic humanitarian crisis. In the mica belt of Jharkhand and Bihar, the mineral is inextricably linked to extreme poverty, hazardous working conditions and the pervasive exploitation of child labour.
The crisis of child labour in mica mining cannot be dismissed as an isolated failure of local law enforcement. Instead, it represents a profound structural imbalance within the global legal order[3]. On one end of the supply chain, multinational corporations utilize sophisticated intellectual property regimes, comprising trademarks, patents and trade secrets, to secure market dominance and premium pricing. These legal protections are actively enforced by state mechanisms to safeguard corporate profits. On the other end, vulnerable workers in the informal mining sector, including children as young as five, are frequently denied the protection of constitutional and statutory labour laws.[4] This paradox creates a legal vacuum where the enforcement of commercial rights is prioritized over fundamental human rights, resulting in a disconnect between the economic value realized at the point of sale and the human cost incurred at the point of extraction.
Mica’s universal presence in the high-tech and luxury sectors highlights a significant moral dissonance. While the end-user enjoys the shimmer of a lipstick or the efficiency of a smart device, the primary producer often labours in darkness. This disconnect is facilitated by a globalized trade system that values the protection of intangible assets, intellectual property, far more than the physical safety of those at the base of the value chain. The legal framework surrounding mica has historically failed to account for this disparity, treating the mineral as a mere commodity rather than the product of human toil. This research paper explores how the recent legislative shifts, including the reclassification of mica in India and the rise of mandatory Environmental Sustainable Goals disclosures[5], offer a potential, yet incomplete, path toward reconciliation.[6]
Constitutional and Statutory Foundations of Child Protection in India
The Legal Framework for child protection in India is deeply rooted in the Constitution, which views the elimination of child labour as a fundamental duty of the state. Article 24 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the employment of children below the age of fourteen in any factory, mine or all other hazardous employment[7]. This mandate is reinforced by Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life with dignity, a right the judiciary has expanded to encompass health, education and developmental security. Furthermore, Article 39(e) and (f) of the Directive Principles of State Policy obligate the state to ensure that children are not forced by economic necessity to enter vocations unsuited to their age or strength[8].
Despite these constitutional ideals, the statutory reality is governed by the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. Substantially amended in 2016, this Act prohibits the employment of children below fourteen in all occupations and restricts adolescents aged fourteen to eighteen from hazardous occupations, including mining[9]. Supporting this is the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which criminalizes child exploitation and provides mechanisms for rescue and rehabilitation[10]. However, the efficacy of these laws is severely undermined in the context of mica mining by the informal and decentralized nature of the industry.
In Jharkhand and Bihar, extraction often occurs in abandoned or illegal pits, known as dhibra picking, which fall outside formal regulatory oversight. These operations lack formal employment contracts, rendering the children involved invisible to labour inspectors. In certain villages, eight out of ten families are engaged in mica picking, with children performing tasks such as sorting and extraction in hazardous, unregulated pits. The socio-economic disparity in India, while it is the fifth-largest economy, creates widespread vulnerabilities where children are caught between the need for survival and the right to education. Nearly 10.1 million children are engaged in child labour across India[11], with a significant portion in hazardous sectors like mining.
The judicial response to this crisis has been robust in theory but limited in practical implementation. Through landmark judgments, the Supreme Court of India has attempted to bridge the gap between law and reality. In M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu [12], the Court held that economic necessity is no excuse for violating Article 24 and directed that for every child employed in a hazardous industry, the offending employer must pay compensation into a welfare fund[13]. Similarly, in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India[14], the Court ruled that the state has a positive obligation to proactively identify and rehabilitate bonded and child labourers. However, the implementation deficit in the mica belt remains stark due to the remote nature of the mines and the prevalence of illegal operations on forest lands, where no official employer can be easily held accountable.
* Assistant Professor, MM’s Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune
**Student of LL.B 1st Year, MM’s Shankarrao Chavan Law College, Pune
[1]Mongabay India. (2025). Behind the shimmer, the toxic story of mica and forever chemicals available at https://india.mongabay.com/2025/09/behind-the-shimmer-the-toxic-story-of-mica-and-forever-chemicals/
[2]Terre des Hommes Netherlands. (2023). Breakthrough in addressing Worst Forms of Child Labour of mica mines in Jharkhand, Indiaavailable at https://int.terredeshommes.nl/news/breakthrough-in-addressing-worst-forms-of-child-labour-of-mica-mines-in-jharkhand
[3]Chang-hsien Tsai & Ching-Fu Lin, Shedding New Light on Multinational Corporations and Human Rights: Promises and Limits of “Blockchainizing” the Global Supply Chain, 44 Mich. J. Int’l L. 117 (2023). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol44/iss1/4
[4]Press Information Bureau (PIB). (2026). Ministry of Women and Child Development administers the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
[5]Kunvarji Wealth. (2026). ESG Investing in India 2026: Policy, Capital & Sector Trends.
[6] Government of Jharkhand. (2023). Dhibra Policy: Formalizing Artisanal Mica Mining.
[7] Constitution of India. Article 24
[8]Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
[9] Ministry of Labour & Employment. (2022). Children and Adolescents are Prohibited to Work and Help in Mines. Available at https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1844654®=3&lang=2
[10]Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
[11] International Labour Organization. (2017). Fact sheet: Child labour in India. https://www.ilo.org/publications/fact-sheet-child-labour-india
[12]M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1996) 6 SCC 756.
[13]Ibid
[14] Supra 8