India asserts it already meets U.S. labor standards, defending its legal and regulatory frameworks against forced labor during a public hearing with the U.S. Trade Representative.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – India has presented a comprehensive defense of its legal, regulatory, and corporate safeguards against forced labor, informing the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) that the country possesses the necessary institutions, laws, and compliance systems to meet the objectives outlined by Washington in its proposed Section 301 tariff action.
During a public hearing held on July 8, representatives from India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) argued that India’s framework effectively combines constitutional protections, labor legislation, regulatory oversight, and private-sector compliance with internationally recognized standards.
The Indian delegation emphasized that Article 23 of the Constitution explicitly prohibits forced and bonded labor as a fundamental right that can be enforced through the courts. This constitutional protection is further reinforced by the Bonded Labor System (Abolition) Act, modern labor codes, and criminal penalties under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Additionally, India has ratified core conventions on forced labor set forth by the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Industry representatives also highlighted the advancements in India’s corporate governance framework. The CII noted that the Securities and Exchange Board of India mandates the country’s top 1,000 listed companies to submit Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reports. These reports cover various aspects, including human rights, grievance mechanisms, forced labor complaints, supply-chain assessments, and corrective actions. The CII also pointed to the BRSR Lite framework designed for small and medium enterprises, along with voluntary corporate compliance systems that align with international standards.
FICCI informed the hearing that most Indian exporters supplying the U.S. market already adhere to compliance systems established by American buyers and multinational corporations. These systems include supplier audits, due diligence, ethical sourcing standards, and mechanisms for addressing worker grievances.
“In many cases, compliance is driven as much by buyer requirements as by domestic regulation,” FICCI stated in its written testimony.
The industry bodies also referenced sector-specific safeguards. According to CII, aluminum companies engage in formal human rights due diligence, while textile exporters undergo regular audits by U.S. buyers and international certification bodies.
The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority noted that Indian agricultural exports destined for the United States are subject to additional safeguards. For instance, rice exports are only permitted from mills registered with India’s Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, and exporters must meet stringent labor standards required by major U.S. retailers, including Walmart.
Throughout the hearing, Indian representatives maintained that the proposed 12.5 percent tariff would not enhance labor protections, as these safeguards are already integrated into India’s legal and commercial systems.
Instead, they urged the USTR to foster existing cooperation through dialogue, technical engagement, and bilateral mechanisms. They argued that evidence-based collaboration would more effectively advance the shared goal of eliminating forced labor from global supply chains than imposing economy-wide tariffs.
According to IANS, India’s defense underscores its commitment to addressing labor issues while maintaining a robust framework for compliance and governance.