If a child is sent to a hazardous factory to increase family income what is the constitutional view?

Correct answer: Poverty may be a reason but hazardous child labour is prohibited

The direct answer is A: poverty may be a reason, but hazardous child labour is prohibited. A family’s financial difficulty explains why a child may be sent to work, but it does not remove the constitutional protection. The correct reasoning is: the work is in a hazardous factory; the worker is a child; poverty cannot turn a prohibited danger into a legal one; therefore authorities must protect the child and address the exploitation. Article 24 protects children below fourteen years from hazardous employment. B is wrong because poverty does not make all child labour valid. C is wrong because no factory is automatically safe merely because it is a factory; actual hazards must be considered. D is wrong because this is not a cultural-rights issue. Exam cue: understand poverty as a cause, not as a legal permission for hazardous child work.