Supreme Court Directs States to Complete Migrant Worker Transportation Within 15 Days: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).6/2020 (09 June 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 09 June 2020

Citation: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).6/2020

Judges: Ashok Bhushan J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul J., M.R. Shah J.

Can the government ensure the safe return of migrant workers to their homes during a pandemic? The Supreme Court of India, in a suo motu petition, addressed the critical issues faced by migrant laborers during the COVID-19 lockdown. The court directed all states and union territories to complete the transportation of stranded migrant workers to their native places within 15 days. This order came in response to the severe hardships faced by migrant workers due to the sudden lockdown and cessation of employment.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and M.R. Shah, delivered this order. The court also mandated the simplification of the registration process for migrant workers and directed the establishment of counseling centers to help them access government schemes and employment opportunities.

Case Background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a nationwide lockdown starting March 25, 2020, which resulted in the abrupt halt of economic activities. This caused a mass exodus of migrant workers from their workplaces to their native places. Initially, the government’s priority was to contain the spread of the virus, restricting all movement. However, the government later allowed the movement of stranded persons from April 29, 2020. The Ministry of Railways started special Shramik trains from May 2, 2020, to transport migrant laborers. By June 3, 2020, approximately 4228 Shramik trains had transported around 57.22 lakh migrants to their destinations, with Uttar Pradesh and Bihar receiving the most. Additionally, about 41 lakh migrant workers were transported by road.

Several states, including Maharashtra, Delhi, and Gujarat, reported sending large numbers of migrant workers back home. However, reports from intervenors highlighted lapses in providing adequate food and shelter to the workers. The court noted that while the states had policies in place, their implementation was often lacking, causing significant hardship to the migrant workers.

Timeline

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court highlighted the various perspectives on the migrant crisis:

• Central Government:
  • The Central Government, represented by the Solicitor General, detailed the measures taken, including the operation of Shramik trains and road transport, to move migrant workers.
  • They stated that approximately 57.22 lakh migrants had been transported by Shramik trains and 41 lakh by road, with most trains going to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
  • The Central Government also highlighted that the Railways would meet any demand for Shramik trains within 24 hours and that no fare was being charged to the migrant workers.
  • They also mentioned the provision of food grains under various Central Government schemes.
• State Governments:
  • The State of Maharashtra stated that it had sent about 12 lakh migrant laborers to their native places and provided free transport.
  • The NCT of Delhi reported sending 3 lakh workers by train and 12,000 by bus, with 6.5 lakh registered on their portal.
  • The State of Gujarat claimed to have sent over 14 lakh workers by train and 5.75 lakh by road.
  • Uttar Pradesh stated that 25 lakh workers had returned home safely.
  • Other states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Kerala, and West Bengal also presented their efforts to transport migrant workers.
• Intervenors:
  • Shri Kapil Sibal argued for the Central Government to provide guidelines for minimum standards of relief and for states to decentralize the registration process for migrants.
  • Mrs. Indira Jaising highlighted the insufficient number of trains, the difficulties in the registration process, and the poor conditions in quarantine centers. She also suggested cash assistance for migrant workers.
  • Shri Colin Gonsalves suggested allowing registration at police and railway stations and not quarantining asymptomatic migrants.
  • Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi proposed a nationwide plan for medicine, food, shelter, financial relief, employment, education, and awareness programs.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list in this order. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

• Ensuring the safe and timely transportation of all stranded migrant workers to their native places.
• Simplifying the registration process for migrant workers to facilitate their return.
• Providing adequate food, shelter, and other basic necessities to migrant workers.
• Establishing counseling centers to help migrant workers access government schemes and employment opportunities.
• Addressing the issue of withdrawal of prosecution/complaints against migrant workers for violating lockdown measures.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Disaster Management Act, 2005: The court referred to Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, which penalizes violations of lockdown measures. The court directed States/UTs to consider withdrawing prosecutions against migrant workers for violating these measures.
• Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979: This Act was referenced by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to highlight the need for regulating the employment and conditions of service of migrant workers.
• Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996: This Act was also cited by the NHRC to emphasize the need to regulate the employment and conditions of service for construction workers, many of whom are migrant laborers.
• Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008: The NHRC referred to this Act to underscore the need for social security measures for unorganized workers, including migrant laborers.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005: The Court directed States/UTs to consider withdrawing prosecutions against migrant workers under this section, acknowledging that their movement was due to circumstances beyond their control.
• Inter-state Migrant Workmen (Regulations of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979: The Court acknowledged the reference to this Act by the NHRC, emphasizing the importance of regulating the employment and conditions of service of migrant workers.
• Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996: The Court noted the NHRC’s reference to this Act, highlighting the need to regulate the conditions of service for construction workers, many of whom are migrants.
• Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008: The Court recognized the NHRC’s reference to this Act, underscoring the need for social security measures for unorganized workers, including migrant laborers.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a combination of factors, primarily focusing on the humanitarian crisis faced by migrant workers during the lockdown. The Court emphasized the following:

• Immediate Relief: The Court prioritized the immediate need to transport stranded migrant workers to their native places, recognizing the urgency of the situation.
• Basic Necessities: The Court stressed the importance of providing food, shelter, and other basic necessities to migrant workers, ensuring their well-being during the crisis.
• Systemic Lapses: The Court acknowledged that there were lapses and shortcomings in the implementation of government policies and schemes at the ground level, causing severe hardship to migrant workers.
• Humane Treatment: The Court emphasized the need for humane treatment of migrant workers by police and other authorities, recognizing their vulnerability.
• Long-Term Welfare: The Court also focused on the long-term welfare of migrant workers by directing the establishment of counseling centers and help desks to provide information about government schemes and employment opportunities.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of ensuring immediate relief and addressing the systemic issues that led to the migrant crisis. The court’s focus was on both the immediate transportation and the long-term welfare of the migrant workers.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s focus was more on the factual aspects of the migrant crisis (60%), such as the immediate need for transportation, food, and shelter, while also considering the legal aspects (40%) related to the Disaster Management Act and other relevant laws.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Immediate Transportation: All states and union territories were directed to complete the transportation of stranded migrant workers to their native places within 15 days.
• Simplified Registration: The process of registration for migrant workers was to be simplified and decentralized, with facilities at police stations and other local administration places.
• Basic Necessities: States were directed to ensure the provision of food, shelter, and other basic necessities to migrant workers.
• Counseling Centers: States were required to establish counseling centers and help desks at block and district levels to provide information about government schemes and employment opportunities.
• Withdrawal of Prosecutions: States were directed to consider the withdrawal of prosecutions/complaints against migrant workers for violating lockdown measures.
• Data Collection: States were directed to maintain detailed records of migrant workers, including their skills, nature of employment, and previous place of employment.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. All States/Union Territories shall take all necessary steps regarding identification of stranded migrant workers in their State who are willing to return to their native places and take steps for their return journey by train/bus which process may be completed within a period of 15 days from today.
2. In event of any additional demand, in addition to demand of 171 Shramik trains, as noticed above, the railway shall provide Shramik trains within a period of 24 hours as submitted by learned Solicitor General to facilitate the return journey of migrant workers.
3. The Central Government may give details of all schemes which can be availed by migrant workers who have returned to their native places.
4. All States and Union Territories shall also give details of all schemes which are current in the State, benefit of which can be taken by the migrant laborers including different schemes for providing employment.
5. The State shall establish counseling centers, help desk at block and district level to provide all necessary information regarding schemes of the Government and to extend helping hand to migrant laborers to identify avenues of employment and benefits which can be availed by them under the different schemes.
6. The details of all migrant laborers, who have reached their native places, shall be maintained with details of their skill, nature of employment, earlier place of employment. The list of migrant laborers shall be maintained village wise, block wise and district wise to facilitate the administration to extend benefit of different schemes which may be applicable to such migrant workers.
7. The counseling centers, established, as directed above, shall also provide necessary information by extending helping hand to those migrant workers who have returned to their native places and who want to return to their places of employment.
8. All concerned States/UTs to consider withdrawal of prosecution/complaints under Section 51 of Disaster Management Act and other related offences lodged against the migrant labourers who alleged to have violated measures of Lockdown by moving on roads during the period of Lockdown enforced under Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the state’s responsibility towards its citizens, especially the vulnerable migrant population, during a crisis. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the state must ensure the safe and dignified return of migrant workers to their native places, provide for their basic needs, and facilitate their access to employment opportunities. This judgment also highlights the importance of effective implementation of government policies and schemes at the ground level and the need for humane treatment of all citizens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in the suo motu writ petition regarding the problems and miseries of migrant laborers is a significant step towards addressing the humanitarian crisis caused by the COVID-19 lockdown. The court’s directions to complete the transportation of stranded workers, simplify the registration process, provide basic necessities, establish counseling centers, and consider withdrawing prosecutions against migrant workers demonstrate a comprehensive approach to the issue. This judgment underscores the state’s responsibility to protect its vulnerable populations and ensure their welfare during times of crisis.