In India’s rapidly evolving professional landscape, internships have assumed an indispensable position, especially in the legal field. The practice of engaging interns has become so ubiquitous that it now forms an informal but powerful bridge between academic instruction and professional practice. However, despite the considerable significance of internships, the rights of interns under Indian labour laws remain a grey and inadequately codified area. This article endeavours to explore in depth the status of interns under Indian labour legislation, the jurisprudential position, and the practical implications arising therefrom.
Absence of a Statutory Definition
At the very outset, it must be acknowledged that the term “intern” itself is not expressly defined under any principal Indian labour statute. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and other significant enactments are conspicuously silent in this regard. This legislative silence creates a precarious situation wherein the rights and protections afforded to employees do not automatically extend to interns. The crux of the issue lies in whether interns may be considered “workmen”, “employees”, or “apprentices” within the meaning of various labour enactments.
Nature of Legal Internships
For the legal profession specifically, internships are predominantly structured as unpaid or nominally compensated arrangements. Law students engage with advocates, law firms, corporate legal departments, and non-governmental organisations to gain practical exposure. Such arrangements are generally understood as educational, aiming at imparting practical training rather than constituting a contract of employment. However, this informal understanding often leads to exploitative situations where interns are required to discharge substantial work obligations without corresponding legal entitlements or protections.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Definition of Workman
In the absence of specific provisions, courts have often been called upon to interpret whether an intern falls within the definition of a “workman”. The Industrial Disputes Act defines a “workman” under Section 2(s) as any person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. It is pertinent to note that for an individual to be categorised as a workman, the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the element of remuneration are indispensable. Interns, whose engagement is primarily for educational benefit and who often work without remuneration, generally do not satisfy this definition. Consequently, they remain outside the protective umbrella of dispute resolution mechanisms envisaged by the Industrial Disputes Act.
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Remuneration
Further, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 prescribes statutory minimum wages for employees engaged in scheduled employments. An intern, lacking the status of an employee, cannot demand minimum wages as a matter of right. This statutory exclusion enables organisations to engage interns without any legal obligation to pay them a stipulated amount, often resulting in unpaid or underpaid internships.
Apprentices Act, 1961: Not Applicable to Legal Interns
However, an exception is found in the Apprentices Act, 1961, which regulates apprenticeships in designated trades. The Act defines an apprentice as a person undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship. It mandates that apprentices be paid a stipend at rates prescribed by the Central Government. Notably, the legal profession does not fall under the schedule of designated trades notified under this Act. Hence, law interns cannot seek refuge under this enactment either.
Shops and Establishments Acts: A Limited Avenue
Another aspect meriting attention is the Shops and Establishments Act, which governs the conditions of employment in commercial establishments across various States. Some State legislations, like the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, cover all persons employed in shops and commercial establishments. There remains an interpretational scope for interns to be brought within its ambit if they render actual work for the employer under directions and control, especially if the internship agreement mirrors the features of employment. However, this determination is highly fact-specific and often hinges on the nature of duties, the extent of control exercised by the principal, and the existence of remuneration.
Lack of Coverage under Occupational Safety Laws
In the realm of occupational safety and welfare, interns similarly find themselves deprived of explicit statutory recognition. They are not covered by the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, unless specifically brought under by the employer’s voluntary compliance or policy inclusion. This exposes interns to precarious working conditions without health insurance or accident coverage, despite performing tasks which, at times, may involve significant stress, long hours, and in certain instances, fieldwork that carries inherent risks.
Judicial Interpretation and the Substance over Form Doctrine
Interestingly, the judicial approach to internships in the legal field has so far been limited and inconclusive. The Indian courts have seldom been confronted directly with disputes involving the rights of interns. However, general principles of contract law under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, do govern the internship arrangement insofar as it constitutes a private contract. Thus, if an intern is promised remuneration or stipend, non-payment can invite civil action for breach of contract. Nevertheless, this remedy remains contractual and does not translate into statutory labour law protection.
The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have, in other employment contexts, elaborated the doctrine of “substance over form” while discerning the true nature of an engagement. If, under the garb of an internship, the reality reflects that the intern is performing the functions of a regular employee, and the control test is satisfied, courts may pierce the veil to extend statutory benefits. However, such litigation remains rare, primarily due to interns’ lack of bargaining power and the transient nature of internships.
Constitutional Safeguards against Exploitation
The constitutional framework also sheds light on the position of interns. Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour. If an internship demands substantial productive work without corresponding educational benefit or remuneration, it may amount to exploitative forced labour. Similarly, under Article 21, the right to life with dignity can arguably be invoked where exploitative conditions prevail. Yet, these constitutional safeguards are theoretical in this context due to the practical difficulties in establishing coercion or compulsion.
Voluntary Ethical Measures by Legal Employers
It must be noted that some progressive employers, especially prominent law firms, have adopted ethical codes and internal policies to safeguard interns’ interests. These include payment of stipends, reasonable working hours, a harassment-free work environment, and issuance of certificates. However, such measures are voluntary and non-enforceable at law.
Comparative International Perspective
On an international plane, the rights of interns have garnered increasing attention. For instance, the European Court of Justice, in several rulings, has underscored that interns performing productive work indistinguishable from regular employees ought to be paid minimum wages. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has similarly emphasised that internships should not be a substitute for decent employment and that national governments must enact clear regulatory frameworks to protect interns against exploitation. India’s legislative apparatus, however, has yet to internalise these global principles in any comprehensive manner.
Emerging Institutional Measures
In recent times, there has been a discernible shift towards recognising the need for legal clarity. Some academic institutions have mandated that internships undertaken as part of curricular requirements should be structured with due safeguards. The Bar Council of India, too, through its rules and inspection reports, emphasises practical training and internships as part of the LL.B. curriculum, but does not prescribe enforceable standards governing the terms of engagement.
The Need for a Dedicated Legislation
Given this legislative vacuum, several legal commentators have advocated for a dedicated “Interns Protection Act”, which would codify the minimum entitlements of interns, including stipends, working hours, anti-harassment provisions, and certification mandates. Until such a measure materialises, the status quo shall continue, where interns remain at the mercy of the benevolence of employers and the ethical standards they uphold.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the current framework of Indian labour laws does not afford interns in the legal field any explicit or comprehensive statutory rights. Their status oscillates ambiguously between student trainees and quasi-workers, dependent largely upon the nature of their tasks, the existence of control, and the contractual understanding with their principals. It is imperative that the legislature, bar councils, and legal institutions collaborate to devise a robust framework that balances the educational purpose of internships with the fundamental rights of young professionals entering the legal workforce. Only such progressive legislative intervention can ensure that internships serve as true instruments of learning and professional development, rather than conduits for disguised exploitation.
Contributed By- Urvashi Bansal (Intern)