Gujarat High Court Probes State's Mechanization Efforts Amidst Ongoing Manual Scavenging Deaths

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a significant move to enforce the eradication of manual scavenging, the Gujarat High Court has intensified its scrutiny of the state government's mechanization strategy, demanding greater clarity on a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model designed to replace human intervention in sewer cleaning. The court's directive comes during the hearing of a long-pending Public Interest Litigation (PIL), underscoring the persistent gap between legislative intent and on-the-ground reality, tragically highlighted by recent fatalities.

A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, is presiding over a 2016 PIL filed by the Ahmedabad-based NGO, Manav Garima. The petition seeks the stringent implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 . The core of the litigation has evolved to not only address the prohibition of this dehumanizing practice but also to ensure the state's accountability in providing viable, safe, and mechanized alternatives.

The court's recent order specifically questions the operational efficacy of the state's PPP model, which is central to its plan to deploy advanced sewer cleaning technology across 150 municipalities. The bench has tasked the government with providing a detailed account of the model's functioning, the procurement process, and the specific roles of entities like the Gujarat Urban Development Mission (GUDM).

The State's Progress Report and the PPP Model Under Review

During the proceedings, Advocate General Kamal Trivedi, representing the state, presented an affidavit detailing the progress made under the PPP arrangement. The court was informed that the GUDM had initiated a Request for Proposal for hiring advanced Vehicle Mounted Suction-cum-Jetting machines equipped with sewage water recycling facilities. This led to an agreement dated November 3, 2022, with Metro Waste Handling Private Limited to procure and operationalize these machines.

According to the state's submission: - 17 sewer cleaning machines have been procured and deployed across six zones. - A project for the supply and operation of 40 manhole cleaning robots is underway, with 10 already procured and assigned to urban local bodies in Amreli, Anand, Godhara, Bharuch, and other designated zones. - Work orders have been issued for an additional 209 machines , with an estimated procurement timeline extending to March-April 2026. - To ensure administrative oversight, Nodal Officers of a substantial rank have been appointed in every Municipal Corporation and Urban Development Authority, with the Chief Officer of each Municipality designated as the Nodal Officer.

Despite these reported advancements, the High Court expressed a need for deeper insight. The bench's order noted, "As regards the requirement of the steps taken to make the Municipalities/Local bodies compliant... more clarity is required about the functioning of PPP Model for the procurement, operation and maintenance of the Machines and also the role of the GUDM for cleaning of Underground Drainage Network."

This judicial demand for transparency goes to the heart of the issue: whether the PPP model is merely a procurement mechanism or a comprehensive operational solution that ensures timely, effective, and safe cleaning of the state's entire underground drainage network.

Persistent Tragedies Raise Questions of Liability

The court's sharp focus on the implementation details was spurred by submissions from the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Subramaniam Iyer. He brought to the court's attention the grim reality that deaths due to manual scavenging continue to occur, even as mechanization efforts are supposedly underway.

Mr. Iyer stated that "even after and inspite of court orders recent deaths have occurred," referencing a specific incident involving two fatalities that led to the filing of an FIR on September 9, 2025. This submission challenges the narrative of progress and raises critical questions about liability. If advanced machines are available, why are individuals still being sent into manholes? Who is responsible when the system fails?

The court has granted Mr. Iyer four weeks to place on record further particulars regarding the incident to aid in "fixing liability of those that may have been negligent." This move signals the court's intent to move beyond policy-level directives and delve into specific instances of non-compliance to establish a chain of accountability, potentially implicating municipal officials, private contractors, or both.

Legal and Systemic Implications

The proceedings in MANAV GARIMA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. carry significant legal implications for several domains:

1. Judicial Oversight of Social Legislation: The case is a textbook example of the judiciary's role in enforcing socio-economic rights and overseeing the implementation of welfare statutes. The court is not merely interpreting the 2013 Act but actively monitoring the executive's roadmap for its enforcement.

2. Accountability in PPP Models: By demanding clarity on the PPP model, the High Court is scrutinizing the intersection of public welfare and private enterprise. The outcome could set a precedent for how such partnerships are structured, monitored, and held accountable, particularly in essential services that have life-and-death consequences. Legal practitioners involved in infrastructure and administrative law will be watching closely.

3. Fixing Vicarious and Direct Liability: The court's focus on fixing liability for recent deaths could lead to a more robust legal framework for prosecuting violations of the 2013 Act. It may clarify the extent of liability for municipal officers, private contractors, and other officials who fail to prevent the engagement of manual scavengers, either directly or through negligence.

The Path Forward: A Mandate for a Concrete Timeline

Looking ahead, the High Court has broadened its mandate to the state. The bench has directed the Commissioner, Municipalities Administration, to "work out the current and future requirements for 150 Municipalities of the State and submit a timeline to complete the process."

This directive shifts the onus on the government from simply reporting past actions to presenting a comprehensive, time-bound plan for the future. The court is seeking a clear commitment, not just on procurement, but on achieving 100% mechanization across the state's urban drainage networks.

The state is expected to file a further affidavit detailing this progress and clarifying the operational mechanics of its PPP model before the next hearing. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on November 28, 2025, a date by which the state will be expected to provide substantive answers to the court's pointed questions about both machinery and accountability.