Forced labour explained: Why India changed its import policy

India's recent amendment to its Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) to prohibit imports of goods produced using forced labour marks a watershed moment in the country's trade and human rights journey. This policy shift, notified by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, is not merely a regulatory tweak but a strategic alignment of domestic law with constitutional mandates and international obligations. To understand its full significance, we must trace the backdrop: for years, major trading partners, particularly the United States, have scrutinized global supply chains for labour rights violations. The U.S. Department of Labor's "List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor" has frequently cited Indian sectors such as textiles, bricks, and stone quarrying. In 2023, the U.S. initiated investigations into alleged forced labour in Indian supply chains, creating potential risks of import bans under the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 307), which prohibits entry of goods made with forced labour. This external pressure acted as a catalyst, but the domestic legal foundation runs much deeper. Constitutionally, Article 23 of the Indian Constitution explicitly prohibits "traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour," making it a fundamental right enforceable against both State and private actors. The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, and the more recent Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill further operationalize this mandate. Internationally, India ratified ILO Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour Convention, 1930) in 1954 and Convention No. 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957) in 2000, committing to suppress forced labour in all forms. The FTP amendment now translates these commitments into trade policy language, empowering the government to issue notifications banning specific products identified as being produced with forced labour — a move that mirrors the U.S. Withhold Release Orders (WROs) and the EU's proposed Forced Labour Regulation. The stakeholders are multifaceted: the Ministry of Commerce drives trade compliance; the Ministry of Labour and Employment enforces domestic labour laws; exporters, especially in labour-intensive sectors like garments, leather, and agriculture, face heightened due diligence requirements; and civil society organizations monitor implementation. Economically, this policy enhances India's credibility in negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the EU, UK, and Canada, where labour and sustainability chapters are becoming non-negotiable. It also mitigates reputational risks that could trigger "de-risking" of supply chains away from India. Politically, it signals India's commitment to a rules-based international order and strengthens its voice in forums like the G20 and ILO. Socially, if enforced rigorously, it could drive formalization of informal workforces and improve conditions for millions of vulnerable workers. However, challenges loom large. Identification of forced labour in complex, multi-tiered supply chains requires robust tracing mechanisms, third-party audits, and coordination with state labour departments — areas where capacity remains weak. There is also the risk of protectionist misuse, where trade barriers are disguised as labour standards. The way forward lies in building a transparent, evidence-based designation process, investing in labour inspection systems, and aligning with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. For aspirants, this development sits at the intersection of Constitution (Article 23), International Relations (ILO, US-India trade), Economy (FTP, export competitiveness), and Governance (policy implementation). It exemplifies how domestic constitutional values are increasingly shaping foreign economic policy in a globalized world — a theme that will only deepen in coming years.