Legal Provision: National Commission for Safat Karamchari Act, 1993; the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013; The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Constructions of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Citation: 2023/INSC/950 | MANU/SC/1183/2023
Counsels:
For Petitioner ………………………………………………………….. Dr. Balram Singh
Versus
For Respondent ………………………………………………………… The Union of India
In 1993, the National Commission for Safai Karamchari (under the National Commission for Safat Karamchari Act, 1993) established a special Commission for Safai Karamchari. Their task was to recommend specific welfare programs for Safai Karamcharis. During the same year, India prohibited the employment of manual scavengers. Manual scavengers were responsible for manually emptying specific types of dry toilets. Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act in 2013. This expanded and clarified the scope of the previous legislation to include insanitary latrines, ditches, and pits. The Supreme Court, in Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2014)[1] addressed similar issues as seen in the present case and issued certain directions. Despite these legislative efforts, the Petitioner contends that the essential provisions of these statutes have not been effectively implemented by the Respondents. As a result, the Petitioner is seeking strict enforcement, in letter and spirit, of the 1993 and 2013 Acts. They are arguing for a blanket ban on manual scavenging and are simultaneously seeking assurance of adequate rehabilitation and employment opportunities for those currently engaged in these practices.
ISSUES RAISED:
The petitioner, in the present case, sought directions from the Apex Court for several issues, such as directing the Union to implement the prior legislations in spirit and intent, all the while making provisions for safe underwater treatment and disposal/use of the treated water for cattle, agriculture/provide rainwater harvesting throughout the country/connect all toilets with sewage systems/convert all open drains into closed ones etc.
CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:
THE PETITIONER
The petitioner, in his writ petition, sought several directions to protect the environment. He urged the respondents to implement various environmental protection statutes and regulations, including establishing underground sewage systems for used water disposal and treatment in all areas. The petitioner, furthermore, called for the provision of clean water in all regions, mandatory rainwater harvesting for construction, and connecting all toilets to sewage systems. Additionally, the petitioner emphasizes the need for large water purifier plants and sewage treatment plants, converting open drains to closed ones, and constructing underground drains. Mechanized measures for cleaning drains to replace manual scavenging. The treated water to be made reusable for non-human consumption purposes. The petitioner sought the repair of roads within a specific timeframe and advocated for accountability for government officers neglecting environmental protection provisions. Additionally, a compensation of INR 50,00,000 was requested for any person who dies while manually cleaning sewage during the petition’s pendency. The petitioner emphasized the right to dignified employment for oppressed classes under constitutional articles 15, 17, 23, and 24. Notably, the petitioner submitted that ‘consent’ given by the worker to perform hazardous cleaning would not mean that labour is not forced[2]. The amicus curiae, appointed by the Court, also argued that the existing institutions under the 1993 and 2013 Acts, particularly at various government levels, are largely non-functional.
Concerns about sewer deaths were raised, highlighting a legislative gap in rehabilitating hazardous workers. The amicus contended that hazardous cleaning is a form of forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution, which demands a broader interpretation beyond remuneration considerations. Commission for Safai Karamcharions, such as the National Commission for Safai Karamchari, are also highlighted, with recommendations for creating task forces and fresh surveys to address data inadequacies.
During the proceedings, Ms. Jayna Kothari (intervenor), Senior Counsel for THAMATE, argued for a broader definition of the Manual Scavengers Act of 2013. She suggested that the definition of manual scavenger should include anyone engaged in manual cleaning, regardless of the equipment used. This would ensure comprehensive coverage for rehabilitation under Sections 11-16. She cited judicial precedents to emphasize the importance of a broadened definition. Moreover, Kothari stressed the need for mechanization and phased implementation of an inclusive manual scavenger definition. She recommended modern technologies like the ‘Bandicoot’ as examples and suggested a graded timeline for full mechanization. She also proposed measures to address shortcomings in existing schemes such as the ‘Swachh Bharat Mission’. These measures include detailed reporting on surveys, issuance of identification cards, compliance with rehabilitation requirements, and meetings of monitoring committees at various administrative levels. The proposal also included data segregation to specify the number of women engaged in manual scavenging. MAANGANGGO India International (intervenor), an NGO/Trust, requested a writ or measures to direct the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog to formulate a comprehensive policy action plan. The plan, as per their request, should mandate the adoption of modern technology for sewerage cleaning, declare manual scavenging as a punishable offence, upgrade sanitation infrastructure, promote eco-friendly waste disposal, ensure compulsory free education for children of scavengers (especially girls), and provide vocational training and financial incentives for rehabilitation, with a focus on women.
THE RESPONDENT
The submission provided by the respondents contained detailed answers to the court’s inquiries concerning the implementation of the Comprehensive Mechanism Committee (CMC) and the status of manual scavenger surveys. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) stated that the CMC had not met for three years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and committee members’ tenure had expired. The ASG clarified that the survey responsibility falls under the 2013 Act, with local bodies overseeing the process. The ASG highlighted the challenges of conducting a nationwide survey and mentioned the Swachhata Abhiyaan app, which can be used to report insanitary latrines. However, data verification remained an issue, making it hard to ensure accurate and reliable information.
The government spent ₹10.48 Crore on the 2013 survey, which identified 13,881 manual scavengers. A national survey conducted from 2018 to 2020 identified 44,217 manual scavengers, and the government compensated them with ₹176.87 Crore. The government also addressed the issue of sewer deaths and compensated 631 out of 663 cases. Efforts like providing capital subsidies, vocational training, and sanitary toilets were emphasized. Regarding discrepancies in data, the National Safai Karamchari Finance and Development Corporation (NSKFDC) claimed that its confirmed and verified data of 58,098 manual scavengers was reliable. The government clarified that the differences were due to ongoing identification processes. The respondents defended consistent figures in Parliament responses and emphasized that identification aimed at rehabilitation benefits, not indicating a rise in active manual scavenging. They opposed establishing a Task Force under CMC, citing the National Action for Mechanized Sanitation Ecosystem (NAMASTE) as a three-tier committee system, which was already tasked with performing the same function. The NCSK’s limited role and challenges, such as staff shortage, were highlighted. The Union, in its affidavit, assured appointments to the NCSK and addressed recommendations from the NCSK’s annual report.
The Railways (party to the case) additionally presented measures it took, including using eco-friendly bio-toilets developed with DRDO, high-pressure jets for toilet cleaning, and the withdrawal of specific notifications. The non-statutory role of the NCSK and its periodic extensions were explained. The NCSK’s steps, such as a 20-point checklist and compensation for sewer deaths, were highlighted. The government insisted that states could provide details on dry latrine abolition and asserted that no deaths from manual scavenging have been reported. Cantonment Boards reported engaging 4,478 permanent and 9,897 outsourced Safai Karamcharis, with no reported sewerage-related deaths since 2013.
However, the respondents proposed that the court issue directions to states/union territories for Emergency Response Sanitation Units, Responsible Sanitation Authorities, helpline numbers, mechanized cleaning methods, and safety equipment within six months. Additionally, directions to fully implement the Act and the ‘NAMASTE’ scheme were suggested to prevent deaths resulting from hazardous cleaning.
RATIONALE:
The court issued a directive which highlighted the two-fold purpose of the 2013 Act. The first purpose was to criminalise manual scavenging, and the second was to provide rehabilitation mechanisms. The court emphasized the pivotal role of Chapter IV, which is titled ‘Identification of Manual Scavengers in Urban and Rural Areas and their Rehabilitation’, in emancipating manual scavengers. The court explained the survey methodology outlined in the 2013 Rules, which involved Specific Level Survey Committees (SLSC) and District Level Survey Committees (DLSC). These committees should conduct campaigns, collaborate with local authorities and NGOs, and conduct house-to-house surveys to identify manual scavengers. After objections and hearings, the DLSC shall compile the final list, which will then trigger the emancipatory provisions.
Section 11(7) of the Act and Section 6(2) declares that manual scavengers are free upon the publication of the said list, which enables their rehabilitation. Section 13 outlines the rehabilitation entitlements, including a photo identity card, one-time cash assistance, scholarships, residential plots, financial aid, and vocational training. It is important to note that these benefits are contingent on the inclusion in the final survey list, emphasizing the crucial role of the survey in the rehabilitation process. The Supreme Court, importantly, rejected the 2013 and 2018 surveys and dictated that reliance on the same could not be placed for any compensation or rehabilitation. The court directed the Union to formulate policies and issue guidelines to eradicate manual sewer cleaning gradually. It mandated compliance from statutory bodies, corporations, railways, and cantonments. States and Union Territories were instructed to incorporate Union-issued guidelines into their own, specifically for municipalities and local bodies. Furthermore, the court directed the implementation of comprehensive rehabilitation measures, including employment opportunities, education, skill training for sewage workers, and compensation in the event of deaths. It increased compensation for sewer deaths to ₹30 lakhs and urged governments to devise mechanisms for accountability in case of deaths related to contractual or outsourced work.
The Union was given the responsibility of creating a model contract that would ensure adherence to standards, with penalties such as contract cancellation and blacklisting for non-compliance. The court sought a coordinated effort among commissions and governments to establish committees promptly and monitor vacancies. The 2013 Act mandated the development of training and education modules. One of the vital aspects of the directive was the need for a National Survey to be conducted within a year. The modalities for this survey were to be drawn by relevant commissions and the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Additionally, the court emphasized the need for a portal and dashboard to track relevant information, including sewer deaths, compensation status, and rehabilitation measures.
The bench further listed the matter on 1 February 2024 to examine the progress in implementing the above directions.
INFERENCE:
The proactive approach taken by the Supreme Court is commendable. Even though the Constitution came into being almost 74 years ago, the indelible marks of oppression and marginalization continue to show themselves in our society. Manual scavengers, among many other such workers, are one of the invisible pillars supporting society, yet the continuous, oftentimes downright generational oppression they face is what needs to be put an end to.
The implementation of the Acts of 1993 and 2013 have been attempted before, but this time, with the Apex Court marching along with the Executive, presents itself with a chance of a lifetime. The eradication of manual scavenging would clean one of many slates in Indian history that continue to stop it from accomplishing an egalitarian society. The Government, therefore, must readily, and steadily strive to accomplish what our Founding Fathers envisioned in Articles 16 and 17 of our Constitution- A society, fair in its structure, equal in opportunities and reasoned in justice.
Vinayan Singh
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow
References
India Code. (2024). Retrieved from India Code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/
Manupatra. (2024). Retrieved from Manupatra: https://www.manupatrafast.com/
[1] Safai Karamchari Andolan and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 244
[2] Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0254/1983