Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1907
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. Sema, R.V. Raveendran, JJ.
Safai Karamchari Andolan & Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No (S). 583 of 2003
Decided On : 14-11-2005
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.
Responsible persons at the higher level in each department must file accurate affidavits regarding the existence of manual scavenging, the schemes for eliminating it, and the rehabilitation plans.
Headnote:
Manual Scanvenging - Government Orders - The court directed the Union of India and each State to file detailed affidavits regarding the existence of manual scavenging in their departments or corporations, the schemes for eliminating it, and the rehabilitation plans. The court clarified that responsible persons at the higher level in each department must file the affidavits, and the information provided must be accurate.
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the Union of India and each State to file detailed affidavits regarding the existence of manual scavenging in their departments or corporations, the schemes for eliminating it, and the rehabilitation plans. Some corporations/states did not comply with the directions, and specific departments were instructed to file detailed affidavits within a specified timeframe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that some corporations/states did not file affidavits in accordance with the court's directions. It also directed specific departments to file detailed affidavits within a specified timeframe. The Union of India's declaration of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as the nodal agency for implementing various schemes was noted.
Issues: Non-compliance with court directions, responsibility for filing detailed affidavits, and the role of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as the nodal agency for implementing various schemes.
Ratio Decidendi: The responsible persons at the higher level in each department must file detailed affidavits regarding the existence of manual scavenging, the schemes for eliminating it, and the rehabilitation plans. The information provided in the affidavits must be accurate, and specific departments were instructed to file detailed affidavits within a specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The court directed non-compliant corporations/states to file detailed affidavits within a specified timeframe and noted the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as the nodal agency for implementing various schemes.
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 States do not continue with their efforts to eliminate this degrading practice.
List on 14th November, 2005.
2. It appears, in response to the aforesaid order some Corporations/ States have filed affidavits which are not in consonance with the directions by this Court in the above order. That apart, State of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Bihar have not filed affidavits. They are directed to file detailed affidavit within four months from today. We clarify that in the aforesaid order when we say that the State and each Department and Corporation, means that Secretary of Health, Secretary, Ministry of Social Welfare and Justice, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and the concerned Department which deals with Manual Scanvenging shall file detailed affidavit after collecting information from the concerned Municipality/Corporation or other local Department where Manual Scanvenging is carried on in any of the State/Corporation/Municipality/Department. The affidavit shall further to state whether any scheme by the concerned State/Department is prepared for the elimination of Manual Scanvenging and the time-bound implementation of the scheme shall also be indicated. We further clarify that in order dated 29.4.2005, the Banks and other public sector undertakings and financial Institutions are excluded from the purview of our order. They need not file any separate affidavit.
3. Mr. B. Datta, learned ASG submits that the Union of India has declared Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment as noddle Agency of the Centre in implementation of the various Schemes. The concerned Department shall file the detailed affidavit by a responsible person not below the rank of Secretary of Department who is responsible for taking decision in the matter. The said affidavit shall be filed by the concerned person stating that the contents are true to his information and to the best of his knowledge to be true, as such person shall be held responsible if it is found that the affidavit does not contain true facts.
4. With regard to the Ministry of Railways, the Secretary, Railway Board shall file detailed affidavit showing the scheme/proposed scheme prepared by the Railway Board and implementation of the scheme in time-bound programme for total elimination of Manual Scanvenging. This shall also be done within four months from today.
5. We make it clear that affidavit so filed should be circulated to the counsel of the other side at least 10 days ahead of the next date of hearing.
6. It will not be necessary to circulate the counter to all the other States, except to the Union of India and the petitioner, amicus curiae.
7. List this matter on 20th March, 2006.
