If a child is made to work with explosive material in the name of training, what is the correct constitutional view?

Correct answer: Not the label, but age and work risk are decisive

The direct answer is B: age and the danger of the work matter, not the label “training.” Constitutional protection against exploitation does not disappear when hazardous work is given a respectable name. Reason step by step: identify that the worker is a child; identify that explosive material is dangerous; compare the real activity with child-labour protections; conclude that calling it training cannot make hazardous child work acceptable. Option B is correct because reality, age, and risk decide the constitutional issue. Option A is wrong because a name cannot legalise dangerous work. Option C is wrong because titles are a different equality-related subject, not the main issue here. Option D is wrong because religion has no connection with a child being exposed to explosives. The exact legal outcome may depend on the child’s age, the nature of the work, and applicable law, but the given facts clearly require protection, not blind acceptance. Memory cue: examine the work and the child’s age, never just the label.