Back
Quashes Clause Shifting Liability for Manual Scavenger Deaths to Private Employers
“In the 21st Century, we boast about reaching the other side of the Moon, yet the hard reality that stares us in the face is that the social evil of the caste system is still followed in our country.” This poignant observation from the set the tone as a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande delivered a landmark judgment quashing a controversial clause in a Maharashtra that made private societies and contractors solely liable for compensating families of manual scavengers killed on the job.
The Court ruled that of the dated —and its reproduction in a later resolution of —violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against sanitation workers based solely on who employs them. The High Court directed the State and local authorities to pay upfront and then recover it from the private employer.
The Challenge to a Discriminatory Policy
The writ petition was filed by the (a registered trade union), along with Raju Prabhakar Madhve —the father of a safai worker who died cleaning a septic tank at in Mumbra in —and social activist Shreyas Pande . They challenged the provision that fixed the responsibility for on private individuals or societies when a sanitation worker died while cleaning sewers or septic tanks in private premises, rather than on the State or local bodies.
The petitioners argued that this clause was contrary to the directions of the in and , which unequivocally cast the duty on the Union, Union Territories, and State Governments to pay . Senior Advocate , appearing for the petitioners, highlighted that the impugned clause forced the families of deceased workers to “run from pillar to post” to secure and engage lawyers, often delaying or denying relief altogether.
The , in its reply, claimed that 36 districts had been declared free of and that of Rs. 10 lakh each had been paid to the families of 81 deceased sanitation workers. However, the Court noted that the State’s own affidavit revealed continuing deaths, and the claim of a scavenging-free State was contradicted by ongoing fatalities.
A Violation of the Right to Equality
The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legal framework, tracing the evolution from the 1993 Act to the comprehensive , and the (SOP) issued by the . The Court observed that despite these protections, implementation by the State and local authorities was “miserably lacking.”
Central to the judgment was the finding that of the GR created an . The Court held:
“The policy of the State Government at of the dated and is clearly violative of the guaranteed under , in as much as it discriminates between the class of sanitation workers, who are carrying the same work only on the basis of the employer appointing them.”
The Court emphasised that the Act of 2013 does not distinguish workers based on their employer, and the in Dr. Balram Singh had directed that “shall be paid, by the agency concerned i.e. the Union, the Union Territory or the State as the case may be.” The State’s attempt to shift that liability to private entities was therefore struck down.
Directions for Immediate Relief and Long-Term Reform
The Court quashed from both the 2019 and 2025 Government Resolutions. It further directed that the dependants of three workers listed at — Devidas Chandrakant, Mahadeve Dhondiram Zope, and Suraj Madhave —along with Ghanashyam Kori and Ritik Kurkute from , must receive of Rs. 30 lakh each within eight weeks, if not already paid.
Going further, the High Court issued a sweeping direction to the State Government:
“The State Government is directed to identify, within a period of 6 months from the date of this order, all persons who have died while engaged in ‘’ as defined under section 2(d) of the act of 2013. Upon such identification, the state government shall pay of Rs. 30,00,000 to the dependants of each such deceased person, in terms of of the Judgment of Hon’ble in Dr. Balram Singh.”
The Court also mandated that the State and local bodies must take steps for the of dependants of sanitation workers and manual scavengers, as contemplated under the Act of 2013, without differentiating between workers employed by the government and those in the private sector.
A Stark Reminder of Unfinished Business
The judgment serves as a powerful indictment of the State’s failure to eradicate a practice that the Constitution and successive statutes have sought to abolish. The bench noted that “inspite of beneficial enactments and various Government Resolutions issued for the prohibition of the manual scavengers and the protection of sewer workers, the implementation of these Acts and Government Resolutions is miserably lacking.”
The decision ensures that no family of a sanitation worker will be left to navigate the labyrinth of private liability after a death caused by . Instead, the State must step in promptly and then recover the amount from the erring employer. As the Court observed, the object of the 2013 Act is to eliminate the “,” which is “inconsistent with the as guaranteed by .”
The rule was made absolute in the above terms.
