SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 1907

H.K.SEMA, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
Safai Karamchari Andolan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Muralidhar, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Dutta, ASG Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondents of A.P.: Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Mr. Mohanprasad Meharia, Adv. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. DS Mahra, Adv. Mr. T. Raja, Adv.
For the Respondents of Tripura: Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
For the Respondents of Assam: Mr. Riku Sarma, Adv. Mr. Krishna Sarma, Adv. Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, Adv. M/S Corporate Law Group, Adv.
For the Respondents of Jharkhand: Mr. Gopal Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondents of Rajasthan: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Respondents of Pondicherry: Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Ms. Indu Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.
For the Respondents of Gujarat: Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mrs. Aruna Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents of U.P.: Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pradeep Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Mr. S. S. Shinde, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
For the Respondents of Tamil Nadu: Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, Adv. Mr. S. Vallinayagam, Adv. Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondents of Haryana: Mr. Manjeet Singh, Adv. Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Harikishan Kataria, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rathee, Adv. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For the Respondents of Meghalaya: Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondents of Goa: Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv.
For the Respondents of H.P.: Mr. J.S. Attri, Adv. Ms. Shivani Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondents of Nagaland: Mr. U. Hazarika, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv.
For the Respondent of Uttaranchal: Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent of Manipur: Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents of J & K: Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv. Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
For the Respondents of Bihar: Mr. B.B. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Sunita R. Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Praneet Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv. Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv. Ms. Mona Rajvanshi, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Happy Saxena, Adv. M/S Manoj Swarup & Co. ,Adv.
For the Respondents: State of Arunachal Pradesh:-Mr. Anil Shrisvastava, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondents of HP State Forest Corpn.: Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Adv. Ms. Sameena Saikh, Adv.
For the Respondents for Mecon Ltd.: Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Nandini Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondents of Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur: Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, Adv. Mr. Nalin Sangal, Adv. Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Adv.
For the Respondents for RITEs Ltd.: Mr. Altemesh Rein, Adv. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondents of Bank of Baroda: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Adv. Ms. Padmini Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, Adv.
For the Respondents of Central Electronics Ltd. Sahibabad: Mr. P.S. Jha, Adv. Mr. M.D. Pandey, Adv. Ms. Manjula Gupta, Adv.
= Container Corpn India : Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv.
For the Respondents State of Pb.: Mr. Sarup Singh, Sr. AAG, Pb. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondents State of Sikkim: Mr. A. Mariaputham Adv. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv.
For the Respondent Union Bank of India: Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Adv.
For the Respondent of SBI: Mr. A.V. Rangam, Adv. Mr. A. Rangadhan, Adv.
For the Respondents of BPT: Mr. Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Adv. Mr. JB Dadanchanji, Adv.
For the Respondents of UBI: Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.
For the Respondent State of M.P.: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Adv.
For the Respondent of Indian Airlines: Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. R.S. Suri, Adv.
For the Respondent of Heavy Engg. Hindustan Salts Ltd.: Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, Adv. Ms. Sushma Sharma, Adv. Ms. Amrita Bhinder, Adv. Ms. Kannika Gomber, Adv.
For the Respondents Indian Overseas Bank: Mr. Devendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Ghanshyam, Adv. Mr. A.C. Mukandan, Adv.
For the Respondents of GRSE Ltd.: Mr. Chanchal K. Ganguli, Adv.
For Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. : Mr. P. Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed,Adv.
For the Respondents Hindustan Paper: Mr. Nikhlesh, Adv. Mr. R. Rahina, Adv.
For the Respondents of CSWB: Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents Steel Authority of India: Mr. Sunil K. Jain, Adv. Mr. S. Borthakur, Adv.
For the Respondents of HPCL: Mr. Parijat Sinha, Adv. Mr. S. Mukherjee, Adv.
For the Respondents BHEL: Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Adv. Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, Adv. Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. K.K. Mani, Adv. Ms. Monika Pandey, Adv. Mrs. C.M. Chopra, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv. Mr. Anil Nag, Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv. Mr. M.C. Dhingra, Adv. Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Sumit Purakayastha, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents of intervenor: Ms. Rachna Joshi Issar, Adv. Mr. V.B. Joshi, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, Adv.

ORDER :

H.K. Sema, J.

This Court on 29.4.2005 passed the following order:-

    The Union of India and each State shall ask persons at the higher level in each of its Department and in its Corporation to personally check and then file affidavits in this Court as to whether or not, in their Department or Corporation any Manual Scanvenging is still being resorted to, then that Department or Corporation to indicate with details what Scheme it has for eliminating it and for rehabilitating the persons concerned and within what time frame. It is clarified that the person who files the affidavit must be a person who is responsible for taking a decision in the matter. The affidavit to be filed on personal information and we propose to hold the person responsible if it is found that the affidavit does not contain the truth.

The Union of India to also state what funds it has so far allocated and under which particular Schemes and what the utilisation of these funds has been, Union of India must state how many people have been rehabilitated each year since 1993.

Such affidavits to be filed within six months from today. We clarify that this does not mean that in the meantime the Union of India and the S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top