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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1082

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. Balram Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 324 of 2020
Decided On : 20-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Adv. Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, Amicus Curiae Ms. Arti Gupta, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Mv Mukunda, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Jayna Kothari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anindita Pujari, AOR Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Radhika Mohapatra, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Chouksey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aparna Mehrotra, Adv.

Legislation prohibits manual scavenging and mandates rehabilitation, yet ineffective implementation led to continued practices; court directed comprehensive measures to ensure adherence and accountability.

Headnote:(A) Civil Rights Act, 1955; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993; Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Writ Petition filed under Article 32, seeking implementation of provisions of 1993 and 2013 Acts - Despite existing legislation, manual scavenging persists, necessitating a stringent enforcement and rehabilitation framework. Court directs comprehensive measures for eradication of manual cleaning, including compensation for sewer deaths and creation of institutional frameworks for monitoring and aid. (Paras 4, 47, 96)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed non-implementation of rehabilitative provisions of 1993 and 2013 Acts regarding manual scavengers, highlighting ongoing manual scavenging and requesting a complete ban.

Findings of Court:
The 2013 Act mandates identification and rehabilitation of manual scavengers through a structured survey which has not been properly conducted, leading to systemic failures in implementation.

Issues: Whether the existing legislative framework effectively prohibits manual scavenging and adequately rehabilitates affected individuals.

Ratio Decidendi: The essence of the 2013 Act is to ensure dignity and rehabilitation for manual scavengers, demanding active governance to enforce these rights.

Result: Directives issued for the establishment of frameworks and compensation schemes to facilitate the objectives of the 2013 Act.

Table of Contents

1. Writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to implement the Employment of Manual Scavengers Act 1993 and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act 2013. (Para 3 , 4 )

2. Whether the 2013 Act requires a national survey; validity of 2013 and 2018 surveys; non-constitution of mandated institutions; hazardous cleaning without gear as forced labor; rehabilitation for deceased workers' families. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 88 , 90 , 92 , 93 , 94 )

3. Directions for proper implementation of the 2013 Act including valid surveys, constitution and functioning of institutions, mechanization of sewer cleaning, and rehabilitation of hazardous workers' families. (Para 96 , 97 )

4. Does the 2013 Act require a national-level survey or only localized surveys by local bodies?

While the Act mandates localized surveys by local bodies, the Central and State Governments must lay down parameters and guidelines for their conduct. The absence of a policy framework cannot render the Act otiose. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 )

5. Were the 2013 and 2018 national surveys valid under the 2013 Act and Rules?

No, the surveys were invalid as they were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed methodology under the 2013 Rules, and the required institutions were not constituted or functioning at the relevant time. (Para 12 , 13 , 57 , 58 , 60 )

6. Does employment of hazardous workers without protective gear constitute forced labor under Article 23?

Yes, where minimum protective gear and cleaning devices are not provided, employment of hazardous workers amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. (Para 88 , 89 , 90 )

7. Must the institutions under the 2013 Act be constituted and functionally operational?

Yes, the systematic neglect and non-constitution of mandated institutions has rendered the Act a dead letter. The Central and State Governments are duty-bound to constitute and ensure effective functioning of all such institutions. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )

8. Should families of hazardous workers who died in sewer cleaning receive rehabilitation entitlements?

Yes, the constitutional principles of dignity and fraternity, coupled with the emancipatory character of the 2013 Act, require that families of deceased hazardous workers receive entitlements akin to those of manual scavengers. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 )

JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The unforgettable annals of our history not only have charted the numerous sacrifices of the people who fought for independence from the foreign imperial ruler but also a lesser-known freedom that for millennia eluded a large mass of people, who were nearly invisible. They were trapped in the thralldom of a solitude from which there was no liberation. That was centuries old stigmatising social practices that led to their depravation, to such levels that they were not even recognised as human beings. Among these practices was one which generations of people, were made to perform the meanest task of manual scavenging. It was to address this kind of social practice and with the resolve to completely out light and emancipate those trapped in it from the thralldom of bondage, that the constitution framers ensured three important provisions, which stare at us like beacons, assuring not only equality but fraternity amongst all people: the prohibition of untouchability; the outlawing of forced or involuntary labour and the freedom against exploitation.

2. To flesh out and give shape to the objects of these provisions, Parliament intervened and enacted several legislations. The first was the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1955; its provisions were amended in 1976 to outlaw the practice of untouchability. The penalization of these severe forms with stringent punishment was sought to be achieved by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was further strengthened by later amendments. In that ensuring full economic freedom and true emancipation were two enactments, the “Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993” (hereinafter “Act 1993”) and the “Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013” (hereinafter “Act 2013”).

3. The present petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to Respondents (Union of India and all the States and Union Territories) to implement provisions, inter alia, of the Act of 1993 and Act of 2013.

4. In the year 1993, a special Commission for Safai Karamchari was established as per the provisions of National Commission for Safai Karamchari Act, 1993 (hereinafter “NCSK Act”) to give its recommendations to Government regarding specific programmes for the welfare of Safai Karamcharis. In the same year, India took another significant step by prohibiting the employment of manual scavengers responsible for the daily manual emptying of certain types of dry toilets. Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Act of 2013 which extended and clarified its scope to include insanitary latrines, ditches and pits. However, the petitioner claims that the respondents have not implemented essential provisions of these statutes. Regrettably, manual scavenging persists despite these legislations. Petitioner prayed that Act of 1993 and 2013 should be implemented in letter and spirit and to do so, it is necessary to impose a blanket ban on manual scavenging, while simultaneously ensuring adequate rehabilitation and employment opportunities for those currently engaged in these practices.

5. This Court previously addressed this subject matter in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 224 and after analyzing the provisions of 2013 Act, issued following directions :

“23. We have already noted various provisions of the 2013 Act and also in the light of various orders of this Court, we issue the following directions:

23.1. The persons included in the final list of manual scavengers under Sections 11 and 12 of the 2013 Act, shall be rehabilitated as per the provisions of Chapter IV of the 2013 Act, in the following manner, namely:

(a) such initial, one-time cash assistance, as may be prescribed;

(b) their children shall be entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top