Legal and judicial context

A long battle against manual scavenging India has had laws and judicial pronouncements aimed at eradicating manual scavenging for decades. The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 was the first attempt to criminalize manual scavenging, but it was poorly implemented. Subsequently, the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 expanded the definition of manual scavenging and mandated rehabilitation measures, including cash assistance, housing, education, and skill development. Despite these laws, the practice persisted, leading to significant judicial intervention.

Key Supreme Court decisions

Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014):

• The Supreme Court observed that manual scavenging was a clear violation of Articles 17, 21 of the Constitution and directed its complete eradication.
• The Court acknowledged that despite the enactment of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, the practice continued unchecked for two decades.
• Due to judicial intervention, the Government enacted the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, which provided a stronger legal framework for abolition and rehabilitation.
• The Court emphasised that manual scavengers, primarily from Dalit communities, were subjected to extreme social discrimination and inhuman treatment, which was a form of untouchability prohibited under Article 17.
• The judgment stressed the international obligations of India under conventions like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), reinforcing the need for India to abolish the practice.
• It directed the railway authorities to adopt a time-bound strategy to end manual scavenging along railway tracks.
• The ruling further ordered the identification of families of all individuals who had died in sewer-related work since 1993 and provided for compensation of ₹10 lakh per death.
• The Court concluded that while judicial monitoring was not required, all state governments and local bodies bore the responsibility of ensuring complete eradication and taking punitive action against defaulters.

The judgment may be read here:

Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2023):

• The Supreme Court condemned the persistent violation of the 2013 Act and noted that despite legal prohibitions, manual scavenging continued unabated in various parts of the country.
• The Court directed the Union of India and states to ensure strict enforcement of the 2013 Act, including a comprehensive, nationwide survey to identify manual scavengers.

“The statutory scheme cannot be undermined through an interpretation that would leave the implementation of the 2013 Act solely with the local bodies, without any guidance from the Governments – State and Central. In other words, the salutary commitment made by the 2013 Act must be fulfilled by the local bodies in accordance with a policy-framework laid down by the Central or State Government.” (Para 53)

• It emphasized the failure of state and district-level monitoring committees, mandating their immediate reconstitution and active oversight.

“During the course of proceedings, on May 2, 2023, it was brought to notice of this court about irregular functioning of the Central Monitoring Committee envisaged under the Act of 2013.” (Para 8)

• The Court expressed deep concern over continuous sewer deaths, ruling that hazardous manual sewer entry amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution.

“Drawing from the above principles, it can be held that where minimum protective gear and cleaning devices are not provided to hazardous workers, the employment of hazardous workers amounts to forced labour and is thus prohibited under the Constitution.” (Para 90)

• The Court ordered ₹10 lakh compensation per sewer death, with state authorities held directly accountable for compliance.
• It stressed the need for better mechanization and technological interventions, directing municipal bodies to replace manual scavenging with mechanized solutions.

“It was noted that many countries have replaced the term “manholes” emphasizing the significance of change in language…… shortcomings in schemes like Swachh Bharat Mission and NAMASTE as it is only limited to urban local bodies, second it remains silent on mechanization technology deployed by the state authorities.” (Para 25)

• It highlighted discrepancies in official data, questioning the gross underreporting of manual scavengers and deaths, and called for transparency and accountability inreporting mechanisms.

“The appropriate government (i.e., the Union, State or Union Territories) shall devise a suitable mechanism to ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course of contractual or “outsourced” work. This accountability shall be in the form of cancellation of contract, forthwith, and imposition of monetary liability, aimed at deterring the practice” (Para 96)

• The Court directed urban local bodies and railways to phase out manual scavenging completely within a fixed timeframe, ensuring full mechanization of sewer cleaning operations.

“The Union should take appropriate measures and frame policies, and issue directions, to all statutory bodies, including corporations, railways, cantonments, as well as agencies under its control, to ensure that manual sewer cleaning is completely eradicated in a phased manner” (Para 96)

• It ruled that states failing to comply with rehabilitation measures would be held in contempt of court, with potential financial penalties imposed for non-compliance.

“The liberative nature of the statute coupled with the object of Article 17 and 23 require entitlements to be given to the families of those persons who died while working in sewers or septic tanks. This is also because the entire family would be rendered without a bread-winner. The economic and social status of the already downtrodden and oppressed family would dwindle further. The dignity of the individual, guaranteed by law under Article 21, must be ensured through rehabilitative processes.” (Para 92)

The judgment may be read here:

Despite these laws and judgments, the ground reality remained unchanged. The latest SC ruling is an acknowledgment of this persistent failure.

Key directives of the 2025 Supreme court order the January 2025 ruling directed that

• All manual sewer cleaning and manual scavenging must stop immediately in the six metro cities: Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad.
• Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of each city must file affidavits before the Supreme Court by February 13, 2025, detailing how they have implemented the ban.

The order may be read here:

Manual scavenging: A never-ending saga in India

Despite multiple judicial interventions, manual scavenging continues to persist due to deep-rooted socio-economic inequalities, caste-based discrimination, and administrative apathy. According to Garima Chawla’s research in The Grim Reality of Manual Scavenging in India: A Human Rights Perspective, published in the Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development (2024), manual scavengers continue to face grave health hazards and socio-economic hardships due to inadequate rehabilitation efforts and the failure of enforcement mechanisms.

The study highlights:

The overwhelming majority of manual scavengers belong to Dalit communities and are subjected to systemic caste-based discrimination.

• Many state governments underreport the prevalence of manual scavenging to avoid accountability and liability.
• Lack of mechanization in sanitation work continues to force marginalized workers into life-threatening conditions.
• Rehabilitation programs fail due to insufficient financial support and lack of alternative livelihood opportunities.
• There is an urgent need for stronger legal enforcement, public awareness campaigns, and rehabilitation efforts to ensure justice and dignity for affected communities.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

Breaking the cruel cycle of oppression: one more judgment against manual scavenging in India

Manual scavenging: Hate crime with caste discrimination at its root, Indian Railways an offender

How courts have expanded jurisprudence for Manual Scavengers

The Manual Scavengers Act: Jurisprudence so far

Manual scavenger deaths: How effective is the law in preventing them?

Death down the drain

The post India’s struggle to end manual scavenging continues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A Bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava has taken cognisance of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a group of law students over proper implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.

The Allahabad High Court noted that the petitioners had undertaken a detailed study regarding objective conditions for scavenging in the city of Prayagraj and other areas of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court further observed that according to the survey, no adequate safety equipment is provided to the scavengers and they are still working manually which is otherwise prohibited under the Act, 2013.

The Bench said, “Having considered all relevant facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to call upon the State of Uttar Pradesh, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj and Jal Nigam, Prayagraj to respond to the contents of the petition for writ at earliest. Let this petition for writ be listed on 12th April 2021. The respondents shall positively file the response to the petition for writ on or before 9th April 2021 after supplying a copy of the same to either petitioner no. 1 or 2 at the address given.”

The petitioners have also made the following recommendations based on the findings of their study:

1. Technological intervention, like suction machines should be made available to prevent manual scavenging.

2. Training of local bodies or sanitation inspectors about the act, safety procedure, technical knowhow of cleaning devices, should be imparted effectively.

3. Proper awareness program regarding the Act and its effective implementation in the ground should also be made a priority, and sensitisation for the authorities should be done.

4. Monitoring authorities to ensure compensation for the families and penalising the implementation agencies in fault.

5. Comprehensive rehabilitation of the families should be provided. One adult family member of the deceased should be given adequate skill training and an opportunity of employment.

6. Allotment of the due amount of scholarship and that there is effective implementation of the scheme for the children whose parent/s engaged in occupation involving cleaning and prone to health hazards.

7. Appropriate infliction of penalty on those involved in the offence of employing people for the dehumanising practice of manual scavenging.

8. Adequate budget allocation for the implementation of the Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS) should be the urgent need of the authority as the budget has reduced drastically over the years.

9. Regulation of sanitation work is needed for – enumeration of sanitation workers, empanelment of private service providers, adoption of standard operating procedures, mechanization of sanitation work, and setting up an Emergency Response Sanitation Unit.

All eight petitioners asserted that the law was enacted to ensure a “dignified life to the lowest rung of the social hierarchy.” They asserted that “the practice of manual scavenging is must to restore human dignity and to abolish dehumanising practice.”

The matter will be heard on April 12.

The order may be read here: 

Related:

Kerala HC directs Water Authority to compensate families of manual scavengers who died cleaning manhole

Municipal officials look other way while manual scavengers still engaged for work: Madras HC

Two manual scavengers die in Chennai, death toll at six for this month alone!

Consider issuing directions for implementing Manual Scavenging Rules: K’taka HC

The post PIL filed for implementation of Manual Scavengers Act, Allahabad HC seeks State’s reply appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has issued several directions to the State Government over proper implementation of the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, while hearing a petition filed by All India Council of Trade Unions (AICTU) and High Court Legal Services Committee has directed the State Government:

·To place on record the details about the number of FIR’s registered for the offences punishable under the Manual Scavengers Act and all other details of the cases

·To call for the data from all the Districts for ascertaining whether the District Level Survey Committees have conducted surveys of manual scavengers and whether the Committees have published the final list of Manual Scavengers of the respective Districts

·To place on record comprehensive data about the survey of insanitary latrines throughout the State and the details about the conversion/demolition of insanitary latrines

·To place on record the details relating to final publication of the District-wise final lists and State level final list of Manual Scavengers

·To call for reports from the authorities/authorized officers specified for implementing the provisions of the Act and to ensure that the directions are issued to authorized officers/authorities to comply with the requirements of Section 19 (duty of District Magistrates and authorised officers)

·To place on record the details about number of meetings held at the Districts, Sub-Divisional and the State level Vigilance Committees

·To issue directions to all the Local Authorities to implement the provisions of the Manual Scavengers Act and the Rules by specifically referring to the obligations and duties under various provisions

·To direct all the Local Authorities to comply with the obligations under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 4 and to immediately ascertain the requirement of number of sanitary community latrines within their respective jurisdictions and thereafter, make construction of such latrines

·To immediately initiate awareness campaigns on a large scale for elimination of the practice of open defecation and ensure that all Local Authorities comply and also take help of NGOs and the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to conduct the campaigns in rural areas.

·To place on record the steps taken for rehabilitation of manual scavengers as provided in Section 13 by stating whether there are any Schemes of Central and State Government for rehabilitation of the manual scavengers

The Union of India was also directed to place on record the copies of the notifications, (if any), issued in exercise of the powers under explanation (b) to clause (g) of Section 2 of the Manual Scavengers Act.

Explanation (b) provides that if a person is engaged to clean excreta with the help of such devices, using such protective gear, as the Central Government may notify in this behalf, he would not fall under the category of a manual scavenger.

The High Court has directed the Karnataka State Government to file compliance affidavits on or before January 30, 2021.

Matter before the Court

Two writ petitions were filed by AICTU and High Court Legal Services Committee praying to discontinue the practice of allowing/forcing sanitary workers to physically enter manholes, sewer lines, septic tanks etc and to direct the State and Union Government to give a report on the action taken by them for removal of the inhuman practice and the implementation of the provisions of the Act.

The petitions also concerned itself with the incident of three manual scavengers who died due to suffocation, while cleaning a pit in an apartment complex at Bengaluru. A writ of mandamus has been sought in the said petition for implementation of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan and others vs Union of India and other (2014) 11 SCC 224.

This was one of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court after the 2013 Act which laid down further guidelines on rehabilitation of manual scavengers and compensation payment of rupees 10 lakh to the family of the deceased. The case was filed by Safai Karamchari Andolan, an NGO working for the rights of manual scavengers and to bring an end to this practice. It was filed against the flouting of the provisions of the 1993 Act as well as to recognize the practice of manual scavenging as violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Karnataka HC’s observations

After hearing the submissions of both parties, the court opined that continuous monitoring will be necessary and the power of issuing continuing mandamus will have to be exercised in this matter.

The Bench said, “We have found that there is hardly any implementation of the provisions of the Manual Scavengers Act and the Rules in the State of Karnataka.” Further, they said, “There can be no dispute that our Constitutional philosophy does not permit any form of manual scavenging. Right of a citizen to live with dignity is an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The preamble of the Constitution shows that the Constitution seeks to protect the dignity of an individual. There can be no dispute that manual scavenging is most inhuman and it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.”

The Division Bench also observed that, “If any citizen is forced to do manual scavenging, it will be a gross violation of his fundamental right conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under Article 47 of the Constitution of India which is a part of Directive Principles of the State Policy, the State is under an obligation to endeavour to improve the standard of living of its people.”

The court also highlighted the major difference between the old act (Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines [Prohibition] Act, 1993) and the Act of 2013. It said that the definition of ‘manual scavenger’ in the Manual Scavengers Act is much wider than the definition of manual scavenger defined under clause (j) of Section 2 of the old Act.

“Under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Manual Scavengers Act, there is a complete prohibition on manual scavenging. Under Section 3 of the old Act, the State Government was required to issue a notification for prohibiting engagement or employment of any person for manual scavenging,” said the Court, adding, “Thus, under the old Act, the prohibition was not automatic. The provisions of the new Act are more comprehensive.”

The court further looked at the Preamble of the Manual Scavengers Act and added emphasis on points, “And Whereas the right to live with dignity is also implicit in the fundamental rights guaranteed in part III of the Constitution. And whereas it is necessary to correct the historical injustice and indignity suffered by the manual scavengers, and to rehabilitate them to a life of dignity.”

Finally, the court issued the above-mentioned directions and posted the matter for February 2, 2021.

The order dated December 9, 2020 may be read here:

Related:

Death by excreta: The cursed lives of India’s manual scavengers

Govt aims to eliminate manual scavenging by August 2021

Sanitation & Justice: Classify Sanitation Workers as Health Workers

The post Manual Scavengers Act: Karnataka HC issues directions over implementation appeared first on SabrangIndia.