India’s Ministry of Human Resource Development recently released the National Education Policy to encourage holistic and multidisciplinary development. The policy ensures that university curriculum consists of hands-on vocational experiences, such as research assignments and internships, to enhance students’ employability. Prior to this policy, courses like engineering and law already have mandatory internship requirements.

While this heralds a welcome change, the lacuna in regulations governing internships needs to be addressed in order to avoid the denial of human and labour rights; ensuring favourable working environment, fair remuneration, protection against discrimination and reasonable working hours for interns.

Ambiguity in internship regulations often results in interns either performing the tasks of employees without pay, or performing menial jobs instead of gaining any real technical or learning experience. Socio-economic disadvantages are also regularly reproduced as low-income students cannot afford the cost of living in metropolitan cities where host-organisations are principally based. Furthermore, they often lack the financial resources and personal connections required to secure internships.

One of the major factors fuelling the continual exploitation of interns is the absence of legal instruments that protect the rights of interns. In India, various laws enshrine disparate definitions of an ‘employee’, but they rarely extend to interns. Under the Minimum Wages Act, an ‘employee’ is any person employed for hire or reward to do any forms of work. The Employee’s Compensation Act, which compensates for injuries or deaths of employees, does not cover interns. Under the Industrial Disputes Act, ‘employee’ includes anyone working for hire or reward, including apprentices. In contrast to interns, apprentices’ rights to leave, stipend and refusal of over-time working have been codified. Only the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplaces Act clearly defines an employee to include irregular/ad-hoc appointees working with/without remuneration, and thus encompass trainees and interns.

Furthermore, the prima-facie test for the determination of employer-employee relationships often precludes interns. Current legislations determine that a hired individual is considered an “employee” and thus eligible for labour rights, if absolute and effective control is vested in the hirer, over matters like, (1)Appointment and dismissal, (2)payment of remuneration, (3)execution and manner of work and, (4)disciplinary action, Additionally, the worker must be hired to perform work in the ordinary course of business. As per these tests, it would be difficult to ensure that unpaid interns satisfy the aforementioned requirements to be considered an “employee” and would not enjoy the labour protection afforded to “employees” under existing legislations.

However, the Supreme Court recognizes that in order to determine the existence of employer-employee relationship, there exist a multitude of tests and the court’s role is to balance all the relevant factors to yield a result. Further, in cases concerning beneficial legislations, the balance should tilt towards declaring the relationship to be of service. Thus, aiding the inference that interns should be treated at par with employees.

Nonetheless, the question of whether these legislations and precedents can protect interns, who largely work in absence of any contract or remuneration, has not been addressed expressly.

Recommendations

Defining ‘interns’ as well as their rights and liabilities is essential. A metric test calculating the per hour cost of supervising and training an intern, as well as the per hour benefit derived, would help in ascertaining the primary beneficiary. Consequently, if the intern is at a greater advantage, he/she should not be remunerated, and contrariwise.

Specific regulations which set minimum standards for safe work places, compensation for accidents, protection from harassment, stipend, etc need to be enacted. There should be a distinction between intern’s tasks and responsibilities and that of an employee to ensure that interns are not unjustly exploited. Measures like mandatory agreements between the host-organisation, educational institution and intern with clear assigning of terms are necessary to obligate favourable working conditions for interns.

To ensure equality of opportunity for disadvantaged students, allowances should be provided. Appropriate authorities should also supervise internship providers, address complaints and ensure rigorous implementation of laws.

The aims envisaged by National Education Policy are ambitious. However, in absence of proper regulationary and institutional changes, the realisation of these goals and implementation of the policy might be unrealistic. To avoid abetting an unpaid internship boom, India needs to protect labour rights and create a sustainable labour market. To protect interns from precarious working arrangements without any legal protection and to ensure that the potential benefits reach them, it is essential that the educational institutions, host-organisations and the government work hand in hand.

(This post builds on a previous post on the NEP by Yifei Yan.)

Note: This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the Social Policy Blog, nor of the London School of Economics.