Supreme Court Orders Complete Eradication of Manual Scavenging and Enhanced Compensation for Sewer Deaths (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 950
Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a practice so dehumanizing and degrading as manual scavenging persist in a modern, democratic society? The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed this very question, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to abolish this practice and ensure the dignity of every individual. The Court directed the Union and State governments to take concrete steps to eradicate manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning, provide enhanced compensation for sewer deaths, and conduct a national survey to identify and rehabilitate those affected. The judgment was authored by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking the implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The petitioner highlighted that despite these legislations, manual scavenging persisted, and sought a blanket ban on the practice, along with rehabilitation and employment opportunities for those engaged in it. The court had previously addressed this issue in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors, issuing several directions for rehabilitation and compensation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter through a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought directions to implement the provisions of the 1993 and 2013 Acts. The Court, during the proceedings, impleaded the Union of India, the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK), the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST). The Court also appointed an Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. The Court noted the lack of action by the Railways and the irregular functioning of the Central Monitoring Committee, leading to specific directions to these bodies. The Court also took note of the submissions made by various intervenors.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and implementation of the following legal provisions:

• Article 15, 17, 23, and 24 of the Constitution of India: These articles form an emancipatory code, prohibiting discrimination, untouchability, forced labor, and child labor, respectively.
• The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993: This Act aimed to prohibit the employment of manual scavengers and the construction of dry latrines.
• The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013: This Act further expanded the scope of the 1993 Act, including insanitary latrines, ditches, and pits, and provided for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers.
• The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993: This Act established the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis to recommend welfare programs for Safai Karamcharis.
• Section 2(d) of the 2013 Act: Defines “hazardous cleaning” as manual cleaning of sewers or septic tanks without proper protective gear and safety precautions.
• Section 2(e) of the 2013 Act: Defines “insanitary latrine.”
• Section 2(g) of the 2013 Act: Defines “manual scavenger.”
• Section 2(p) and 2(q) of the 2013 Act: Defines “septic tank” and “sewer,” respectively.
• Section 7A of the Civil Rights Act, 1955: Bars scavenging or sweeping as an enforced disability arising out of untouchability.
• Section 11 of the 2013 Act: Mandates surveys for identification of manual scavengers in municipalities.
• Section 12 of the 2013 Act: Allows individuals to apply for inclusion in the list of manual scavengers.
• Section 13 of the 2013 Act: Provides for rehabilitation entitlements for manual scavengers.
• Section 14 of the 2013 Act: Mandates surveys for identification of manual scavengers in panchayats.
• Section 24 of the 2013 Act: Mandates the constitution of Vigilance Committees.
• Section 26 of the 2013 Act: Mandates the constitution of State Monitoring Committees.
• Section 29 of the 2013 Act: Mandates the constitution of the Central Monitoring Committee.
• Section 31 of the 2013 Act: Bestows certain powers and functions on the NCSK.
• Section 32 of the 2013 Act: Mandates the constitution of State Commissions for Safai Karamcharis.
• Rule 3 of the 2013 Rules: Prohibits manual cleaning of sewers.
• Rule 4 of the 2013 Rules: Specifies protective gear for hazardous cleaning.
• Rule 5 of the 2013 Rules: Specifies cleaning devices for hazardous cleaning.
• Rule 11 of the 2013 Rules: Provides for the methodology and institutions for conducting surveys.

The Court emphasized that these provisions are aimed at ensuring equality, dignity, and freedom from exploitation, and must be interpreted in a manner that furthers these objectives.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be categorized as follows:

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued for the effective implementation of the 1993 and 2013 Acts, seeking a complete ban on manual scavenging and proper rehabilitation of those engaged in it.
• The petitioner contended that despite the existence of these laws, manual scavenging persists, and the respondents have failed to implement the essential provisions.
• The petitioner sought directions for the provision of underground drainage systems, clean water supply, rainwater harvesting, and mechanical scavenging measures.
• The petitioner requested compensation of ₹50,00,000 for any death occurring during manual cleaning of sewers during the pendency of the petition.

Submissions on behalf of the Amicus Curiae

• The Amicus Curiae submitted that Articles 15, 17, 23, and 24 of the Constitution form an emancipatory code, including the right to break away from oppressive structures.
• The Amicus emphasized the emancipatory nature of the 2013 Act, which identifies, prohibits, and criminalizes manual scavenging, and provides for rehabilitation.
• The Amicus pointed out that institutions created under the 1993 and 2013 Acts are mostly non-functional.
• The Amicus argued that surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018 were not in accordance with the 2013 Act and Rules.
• The Amicus contended that the statutory scheme recognizes that entry into a sewer or manhole can only be after the sewage is totally emptied by machines.
• The Amicus highlighted that hazardous cleaning amounts to forced labor under Article 23 of the Constitution.
• The Amicus argued that hazardous cleaning is a practice borne out of untouchability and must be prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution.
• The Amicus urged that the exceptions provided in the definitions of “insanitary latrine” and “manual scavenger” should be given the narrowest possible interpretation.
• The Amicus pointed out the irregular functioning of the Central Monitoring Committee and the non-convening of State Monitoring Committees.
• The Amicus suggested the creation of a task force under the CMC and a fresh survey.

Submissions on behalf of Intervenors

• Ms. Jayna Kothari, representing THAMATE, argued for a purposive interpretation of Section 2(1)(g) to include anyone engaged in manual cleaning, regardless of protective gear.
• She emphasized the need for mechanization and a graded implementation of the inclusive definition of manual scavenger.
• MAANGANGGO India International prayed for a comprehensive policy plan for mechanization, infrastructure upgrades, free education for children of manual scavengers, and vocational training.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

• The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) stated that the Central Monitoring Committee had not convened for the past three years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The ASG emphasized that the responsibility for conducting surveys lies with local bodies, not the central government.
• The ASG submitted that surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2018, and a mobile app is used for ongoing reporting.
• The Union reported that ₹10.48 crore was spent on the 2013 survey, and ₹176.87 crore was provided as compensation to identified manual scavengers.
• The Union stated that 663 individuals died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks after 2013, with compensation paid in 631 cases.
• The Union highlighted efforts in constructing sanitary toilets and providing skill development programs.
• The Union argued that the data pertaining to manual scavengers, as confirmed and verified by NSKFDC, is the only reliable data.
• The Union argued against the need for a Task Force under the CMC, citing the NAMASTE scheme.
• The Union stated that the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and one member of the NCSK have been appointed.
• The Union submitted that the Railways has taken measures to eliminate manual scavenging, including the use of bio-toilets.
• The Union submitted that they have withdrawn the notifications issued on 04.06.2014 and 13.10.2014.
• The NCSK submitted that it has a limited role and faces challenges due to staff shortages.
• The Union proposed that the Court issue directions to ensure the establishment of Emergency Response Sanitation Units in each district.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the existing legal framework and institutional mechanisms are adequate to address the issue of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning.
2. Whether the surveys conducted for the identification of manual scavengers were in compliance with the 2013 Act and Rules.
3. Whether the Union and State governments have fulfilled their obligations in implementing the provisions of the 2013 Act.
4. Whether the practice of hazardous cleaning violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
5. What measures need to be taken to ensure the complete eradication of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning, and the rehabilitation of those affected.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment was based on a thorough analysis of the submissions made by all parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the constitutional principles of equality, dignity, and freedom from exploitation. The Court found that the Union and State governments had failed to implement the 2013 Act effectively, leading to the continued practice of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning. The Court also noted the non-functioning of the institutions created under the Act, and the inadequate surveys conducted for the identification of manual scavengers.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Safai Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors [CITATION]: The Court followed the directions given in this case regarding compensation and rehabilitation, enhancing the compensation amount for sewer deaths.
• Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the importance of conducting surveys in accordance with the 2013 Act and Rules.
• All India Council of Trade Unions v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to highlight that surveys not following the 2013 Act and Rules are invalid.
• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court relied upon this case to expand the scope of forced labor to include situations where basic dignity is violated.
• Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan [CITATION]: The Court relied upon this case to emphasize that even voluntary consent does not validate forced labor.
• State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
• Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to highlight that the implementation of a law enacted by Parliament should not be left to the whims and fancies of State Governments.
• Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A. Rajappa [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for a purposive interpretation of definitions to include all those who need protection under the law.
• X v. Principal Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT Delhi [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to support the purposive interpretation of the definition of manual scavenger.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to abolish untouchability, forced labor, and ensure the dignity of every individual.
• Failure of Implementation: The Court noted the failure of the Union and State governments to implement the 2013 Act effectively, leading to the continued practice of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning.
• Inadequate Surveys: The Court found that the surveys conducted for the identification of manual scavengers were inadequate and not in compliance with the 2013 Act and Rules.
• Non-Functional Institutions: The Court highlighted the non-functioning of the institutions created under the Act, which were meant to ensure its implementation.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court concluded that hazardous cleaning, without proper protective gear and safety devices, violates Article 23 of the Constitution, amounting to forced labor.
• Need for Mechanization: The Court emphasized the need for mechanization of sewer and septic tank cleaning to eliminate the need for manual entry.
• Rehabilitation and Compensation: The Court recognized the need for comprehensive rehabilitation and enhanced compensation for those affected by manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning.

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal interpretation, with a strong emphasis on the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and freedom from exploitation. The court’s decision was driven by the need to ensure that the constitutional mandate is not rendered meaningless by executive inaction.

Court’s Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following comprehensive directions:

1. Complete Eradication of Manual Scavenging: The Union and State governments are directed to ensure the complete eradication of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning.
2. National Survey: A national survey must be conducted to identify all those engaged in manual scavenging, with parameters laid down by the Union government. The survey must be completed within a time-bound manner.
3. Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers: All those identified as manual scavengers must be provided with rehabilitation, including financial assistance, skill development programs, and employment opportunities.
4. Enhanced Compensation for Sewer Deaths: The compensation for sewer deaths is enhanced to ₹30,00,000, and this amount must be paid to the families of the deceased. If the family has already received compensation, the balance amount must be paid.
5. Emergency Response Sanitation Units: The Union and State governments must establish Emergency Response Sanitation Units in each district, with necessary equipment and protective gear.
6. Mechanization of Sewer Cleaning: The Union and State governments must ensure the mechanization of sewer and septic tank cleaning, and that manual entry into sewers and septic tanks is prohibited.
7. Implementation of the 2013 Act: The Union and State governments must ensure the effective implementation of the 2013 Act, with all its provisions enforced.
8. Functioning of Institutions: The institutions created under the 1993 and 2013 Acts, such as the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, the Central Monitoring Committee, and the State Monitoring Committees, must be made fully functional.
9. Regular Monitoring: The Union and State governments must regularly monitor the implementation of the Court’s directions and the provisions of the 2013 Act.
10. Data Management: The Union and State governments must maintain accurate data on manual scavengers, sewer deaths, and rehabilitation measures. This data must be made publicly accessible.
11. Withdrawal of Notifications: The Ministry of Railways is directed to withdraw the notifications issued on 04.06.2014 and 13.10.2014.
12. Central Monitoring Committee: The Central Monitoring Committee is directed to convene meetings regularly and to ensure the effective implementation of the 2013 Act.
13. State Monitoring Committees: The State Governments are directed to ensure that the State Monitoring Committees are constituted and made functional.
14. Vigilance Committees: The State Governments are directed to ensure that the Vigilance Committees are constituted and made functional.
15. State Commissions for Safai Karamcharis: The State Governments are directed to constitute State Commissions for Safai Karamcharis, if they have not already done so.
16. Emergency Response Sanitation Units: The State Governments are directed to ensure that Emergency Response Sanitation Units are established in each district, with necessary equipment and protective gear.

Impact

The Supreme Court’s judgment has a significant impact on society and the legal landscape:

• Social Impact: The judgment aims to eradicate the dehumanizing practice of manual scavenging, ensuring the dignity and fundamental rights of those engaged in this occupation. It seeks to provide rehabilitation and opportunities for a better life for affected individuals.
• Legal Impact: The judgment clarifies the obligations of the Union and State governments in implementing the 2013 Act, providing a concrete framework for the eradication of manual scavenging. It also sets a precedent for the interpretation of constitutional provisions related to equality, dignity, and freedom from exploitation.
• Policy Impact: The judgment mandates a national survey to identify manual scavengers, leading to more accurate data and targeted policy interventions. It also calls for the establishment of Emergency Response Sanitation Units, which will help in preventing sewer deaths.
• Economic Impact: The enhanced compensation for sewer deaths will provide financial relief to the families of the deceased. The focus on mechanization will also create new economic opportunities in the sanitation sector.
• Institutional Impact: The judgment will make institutions created under the 1993 and 2013 Acts more functional and effective. This will lead to better monitoring and implementation of the provisions of the Acts.

Critical Analysis

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant step towards eradicating manual scavenging and ensuring the dignity of those engaged in this occupation. However, it also has certain limitations:

Strengths

• Comprehensive Directions: The Court issued comprehensive directions, covering all aspects of the issue, from eradication to rehabilitation and compensation.
• Constitutional Emphasis: The judgment emphasized the constitutional mandate to abolish untouchability and forced labor, and ensure the dignity of every individual.
• Enhanced Compensation: The Court enhanced the compensation for sewer deaths, providing much-needed financial relief to the families of the deceased.
• Focus on Mechanization: The Court emphasized the need for mechanization of sewer and septic tank cleaning, which will eliminate the need for manual entry.
• Institutional Accountability: The judgment makes institutions created under the 1993 and 2013 Acts more accountable and functional.
• Time-Bound Implementation: The judgment mandates a time-bound implementation of the directions, ensuring that the issue is addressed promptly.

Limitations

• Implementation Challenges: The implementation of the judgment may face challenges due to lack of political will, bureaucratic hurdles, and financial constraints.
• Definition of Manual Scavenger: The judgment does not explicitly expand the definition of manual scavenger, which may leave some individuals unprotected.
• Monitoring Mechanism: While the judgment mandates regular monitoring, it does not provide a specific mechanism for independent oversight.
• Social Stigma: The judgment does not directly address the social stigma associated with manual scavenging, which may continue to affect the lives of those engaged in this occupation.
• Enforcement of Directions: The effectiveness of the judgment depends on the strict enforcement of the directions by the Union and State governments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Balram Singh vs. Union of India & Ors is a landmark decision that aims to eradicate manual scavenging and ensure the dignity of those engaged in this occupation. The Court issued comprehensive directions for the complete eradication of manual scavenging, enhanced compensation for sewer deaths, and the rehabilitation of those affected. The judgment is a significant step towards fulfilling the constitutional mandate to abolish untouchability, forced labor, and ensure the dignity of every individual. However, the effectiveness of the judgment depends on its strict implementation by the Union and State governments, and on the continued efforts to address the social stigma associated with manual scavenging. The judgment serves as a reminder that the constitutional values of equality, dignity, and freedom from exploitation must be upheld in all aspects of life.