# CASE DETAILS DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 950
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-10-20
- **Bench:** S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-dr-balram-singh-v-union-of-india-ors-36691
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: Implementation of the provisions of
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation
Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Employment of Manual Scavengers and
Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 - Directions by
Supreme Court - Eradication of manual scavenging in a phased manner
- Rehabilitation measures - Compensation for sewer deaths etc.:
Held: The Union should take appropriate measures and frame
policies and issue directions, to all statutory bodies to ensure that manual
sewer cleaning is completely eradicated in a phased manner, and also issue
guidelines and directions that any sewer cleaning work outsourced, or
required to be discharged, by or through contractors or agencies, do not
require individuals to enter sewers, for any purpose whatsoever - States
and Union Territories to ensure that all departments, agencies, corporations
ensure that guidelines and directions framed by the Union are embodied in
their own guidelines and directions - States to ensure that such directions
are applicable to all municipalities, and local bodies functioning within
their territories - The Union, State and Union Territories to ensure that full
rehabilitation (including employment to the next of kin, education to the
wards, and skill training) measures are taken in respect of sewage workers,
and those who die - Compensation for sewer deaths shall be Rs.30 lakhs
- Compensation stated in the case of sewer victims suff ering disabilities,
depending upon the severity of disabilities - Mechanism be devised to
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course
of contractual or outsourced work - A model contract to be deviced, to be
used wherever contracts are to be awarded and in the event of any mishap,
the agency would lose its contract, possibly blacklisting - Modalities be
drawn for the conduct of a National Survey - NALSA shall be part of the
consultations, toward framing the policies as directed - The Union, State
and Union Territories to ensure coordination with all the commissions like
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK), State Commission
for Safai Karamcharis (NCSC) for setting up of state level, district level
committees and commissions, in a time bound manner - NCSK, NCSC,
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the Union
government to coordinate and prepare training and education modules, for
information and use by district and state level agencies, under the 2013 Act
- A portal and a dashboard, containing all relevant information, including the
information relating to sewer deaths, victims and the status of compensation
disbursement, as well as rehabilitation measures taken, and existing and
available rehabilitation policies be developed and launched - Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013-
National Commission for Safai Karamchari Act, 1993- Constitution of
India- Articles 15(2), 17, 23, 24- Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Contract Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1970. [Para 96]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - s.11 - Interpretation of - Plea of the Union
that s.11 requires localized surveys by local bodies and not a national
survey:
Held: 2013 Act is not a regular statute, it is emancipatory in character
and is a manifestation of the constitutional code of upliftment - The
groundbreaking purpose of the 2013 Act is to ensure that manual scavengers
are rehabilitated - Rehabilitation is a step after identifi cation - Without a
survey, rehabilitation is not workable - 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 gu

## Text

_Characters 0–39,740 of 104,924. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39740 for what follows._

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1083 : 2023 INSC 950
1083
CASE DETAILS
DR. BALRAM SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 324 of 2020)
OCTOBER 20, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Implementation of the provisions of
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation
Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Employment of Manual Scavengers and
Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 - Directions by
Supreme Court - Eradication of manual scavenging in a phased manner
- Rehabilitation measures - Compensation for sewer deaths etc.:
Held: The Union should take appropriate measures and frame
policies and issue directions, to all statutory bodies to ensure that manual
sewer cleaning is completely eradicated in a phased manner, and also issue
guidelines and directions that any sewer cleaning work outsourced, or
required to be discharged, by or through contractors or agencies, do not
require individuals to enter sewers, for any purpose whatsoever - States
and Union Territories to ensure that all departments, agencies, corporations
ensure that guidelines and directions framed by the Union are embodied in
their own guidelines and directions - States to ensure that such directions
are applicable to all municipalities, and local bodies functioning within
their territories - The Union, State and Union Territories to ensure that full
rehabilitation (including employment to the next of kin, education to the
wards, and skill training) measures are taken in respect of sewage workers,
and those who die - Compensation for sewer deaths shall be Rs.30 lakhs
- Compensation stated in the case of sewer victims suff ering disabilities,
depending upon the severity of disabilities - Mechanism be devised to
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course
of contractual or outsourced work - A model contract to be deviced, to be
used wherever contracts are to be awarded and in the event of any mishap,
the agency would lose its contract, possibly blacklisting - Modalities be
drawn for the conduct of a National Survey - NALSA shall be part of the
consultations, toward framing the policies as directed - The Union, State
and Union Territories to ensure coordination with all the commissions like
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK), State Commission
for Safai Karamcharis (NCSC) for setting up of state level, district level
committees and commissions, in a time bound manner - NCSK, NCSC,
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the Union
government to coordinate and prepare training and education modules, for
information and use by district and state level agencies, under the 2013 Act
- A portal and a dashboard, containing all relevant information, including the
information relating to sewer deaths, victims and the status of compensation
disbursement, as well as rehabilitation measures taken, and existing and
available rehabilitation policies be developed and launched - Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013-
National Commission for Safai Karamchari Act, 1993- Constitution of
India- Articles 15(2), 17, 23, 24- Civil Rights Act, 1955 - Contract Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1970. [Para 96]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - s.11 - Interpretation of - Plea of the Union
that s.11 requires localized surveys by local bodies and not a national
survey:
Held: 2013 Act is not a regular statute, it is emancipatory in character
and is a manifestation of the constitutional code of upliftment - The
groundbreaking purpose of the 2013 Act is to ensure that manual scavengers
are rehabilitated - Rehabilitation is a step after identifi cation - Without a
survey, rehabilitation is not workable - 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 - The Central and State Governments were
and are, duty-bound to lay down the parameters under which a local body
was mandated to conduct a survey - While the methodology of the Survey
1085
is provided under the 2013 Rules, the trigger for conducting the Survey is
conspicuously absent from both the 2013 Rules as well as the 2013 Act -
The absence of a trigger cannot render the 2013 Act and its constitutional
commitments otiose by non-implementation - Local bodies must be guided
by the central and state governments by laying down guidelines on when a
survey must be conducted, and which local bodies must conduct a survey -
Without a policy of this nature, a local body cannot be expected to implement
the 2013 Act in a proper manner - while local governments must conduct
surveys, it was for the appropriate authorities, at both the central and state
levels, to lay down parameters for the surveys to be conducted - Prohibition
of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules,
2013 - Constitution of India - Article 17 - Civil Rights Act, 1955. [Paras
53, 54 and 56]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - s.11 - Prohibition of Employment as Manual
Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013 - r.11 - Insuffi ciency
of the previous Surveys:
Held: Neither the 2013 nor the 2018 surveys could have been
conducted as prescribed under the scheme of the 2013 Rules and the 2013
Act for the reason that the institutions entrusted with duties to conduct the
Surveys were either not constituted or were not functioning - Where the
Act and Rules prescribe a particular method and manner of survey, that
method and manner only ought to have been followed and no other method
or manner could have been followed - No provisional list u/s.11(4) was
prepared; no objections were called for and decided u/s.11(5) and no fi nal
list was published u/s.11(6) - In the absence of following, the contention
that there was a valid survey conducted cannot be accepted - Also, this
Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan case had noticed the short-comings of
the survey of 2013 - Hence, when this Court had already found that the
survey was insuffi cient, the Union cannot possibly rely on the same survey
once again. [Paras 57, 60, 66]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Short-coming in the implementation - Nonconstitution of various institutions required for implementation of the
Act:
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Held: A major short-coming in the implementation of the 2013 Act is
the fact that the State and the Central Governments have not even constituted
the various institutions required to implement the Act- Implementation
of the statute depends on the eff ective functioning of the institutions
like National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, State Commission for
Safai Karamcharis, Central Monitoring Committee, State Monitoring
Committee, Vigilance Committees, State/District Level Survey Committee
- Unfortunately, these institutions have not been constituted by the States
and the Union and where they have been constituted, the institutions are not
functioning at all - The Act has created the institutions to ensure a check and
balance on the implementation of the statute - However, instead of being a
check on the implementation, the lack of institutions has eff ectively brought
the implementation of the Act to a total stand-still - Functioning of each of
the institutions dealt with specifi cally. [Paras 67, 68]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning,
separately treated under the 2013 Act - Plea that this violates Article
14 as there is no rational diff erentiation between the two:
Held: This court is not faced with a challenge to the statute -
Without a challenge to the provisions, the diff erentiation cannot be held
unconstitutional - Constitution of India - Article 14. [Para 82]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 - Prohibition of Employment as
Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013 - rr.3, 5 -
Mechanization of hazardous cleaning through 'cleaning devices' and
'protective gear' - Exceptions - Discussed.
Constitution of India - Article 23 - Status of hazardous cleaning
u/Article 23 - Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013:
Held: Article 23 prohibits forced labour and makes it an off ence
punishable in accordance with law - The expression 'other forms of forced
labour' in Article 23 strike at all forms of labour which off end human dignity
- This would include not just remuneration but would also include all labour
where the absolute minimum standards of safe employment are not met -
1087
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 - The provisions for
protective gear and cleaning devices are not mere statutory rights or rules,
but are entitlements and it is due to these entitlements that the provisions
of the 2013 Act are in consonance with the Constitution - A contract for
employment of a hazardous cleaner without protective gear and cleaning
devices would violate Article 23 even if it were voluntary because such an
agreement would violate human dignity. [Paras 88, 90, 91]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Safai Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2014) 11 SCC 224 : [2014] 4 SCR 197; Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union
of India [2014] 4 SCR 197; People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union
of India [1983] 1 SCR 456; Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan [1983] 2 SCR
271; Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board v A. Rajappa [1978] 3
SCR 207; X v. Principal Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT
Delhi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321; Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016)
7 SCC 498; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [1964] 4 SCR 485 - referred to.
Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2021
SCC OnLine Bom 3002; All India Council of Trade Unions v. Union of
India 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 324
of 2020.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Appearances:
Petitioner-in-person
Attorney General for India, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K.
Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Himanshu
Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amrish Kumar,
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi,
Purnendu Bajpai, Mrs. Amiyavikrama Thanvi, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Ms.
Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, MV Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Anindita
Pujari, Sanjay Jain, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1.. The unforgettable annals of our history not only have charted the
numerous sacrifi ces 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 fl esh out and give shape to the objects of these provisions,
Parliament intervened and enacted several legislations. The fi rst 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").
1089
3. The present petition is fi led 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 specifi c programmes for
the welfare of Safai Karamcharis. In the same year, India took another
signifi cant 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
clarifi ed 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 & Ors1 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 fi nal 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;
1
(2014) 11 SCC 224
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(b) their children shall be entitled to scholarship as per the relevant
scheme of the Central Government or the State Government or the
local authorities, as the case may be;
(c) they shall be allotted a residential plot and fi nancial assistance for
house construction, or a ready-built house with fi nancial assistance,
subject to eligibility and willingness of the manual scavenger as per
the provisions of the relevant scheme;
(d) at least one member of their family shall be given, subject to
eligibility and willingness, training in livelihood skill and shall be
paid a monthly stipend during such period;
(e) at least one adult member of their family shall be given, subject to
eligibility and willingness, subsidy and concessional loan for taking up
an alternative occupation on sustainable basis, as per the provisions
of the relevant scheme;
(f) shall be provided such other legal and programmatic assistance, as
the Central Government or State Government may notify in this behalf.
23.2. If the practice of manual scavenging has to be brought to a close
and also to prevent future generations from the inhuman practice of
manual scavenging, rehabilitation of manual scavengers will need
to include:
(a) Sewer deaths - Entering sewer lines without safety gear should
be made a crime even in emergency situations. For each such death,
compensation of Rs 10 lakhs should be given to the family of the
deceased.
(b) Railways - Should take time-bound strategy to end manual
scavenging on the tracks.
(c) Persons released from manual scavenging should not have to cross
hurdles to receive what is their legitimate due under the law.
(d) Provide support for dignifi ed livelihood to safai karamchari women
in accordance with their choice of livelihood schemes.
23.3. Identify the families of all persons who have died in sewerage
work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award compensation
1091
of Rs 10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending
on them.
23.4. Rehabilitation must be based on the principles of justice and
transformation.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims several directions
such as:
(a) directing the respondents to implement provisions of the Water
Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environment Protection Act,
1986, The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; The Employment of
Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993 The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and other statutes rules and regulation
pertaining to protection of environment and human health and direct
respondent to
(b) make provisions for underground swear /drainage system for
disposal of used water and for treatment of used water in all villages
towns and cities including slum areas
(c) make used water reusable after treatment for use of cattle,
agricultural and other purposes except for human drinking and
separate ponds should be made for collecting water for human use
and animals use;
(d) make provisions for supply of goods, clean and un contaminated
water in all villages, towns and cities and for this purpose to install
big water purifi er plans so that every citizen of the country can have
good and purifi ed drinking water of high quality;
(e) provide for rain water harvesting system throughout the country.
It must be made a pre-requisite for raising any type of construction
(f) connect all toilets with sewage system
(g) install sewage treatment plants waste plants in all villages, towns
and cities of the country
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
(h) convert all open drains into close one and construct all drains
underground in further
(i) provide for mechanical scavenging measures for cleaning drains
and sewages lines and to stop manual immediately
(j) repair roads within a prescribed period
(k) fi x liabilities of government offi cer who do not follow and implement
provisions for environmental protection. They should be punished for
every negligence act of non-compliance of provisions
(l) pay compensation of rupees fi fty 50,00,000/- (Rupees fi fty lacs) in
case any person dies while entering or after entering into sewage for
cleaning it manually during pendency of this petition,
(m) provide for good drinking water on demand of public in areas
where there is no provision for water supply and water available is
contaminated and not fi t for human use
(n) repair all roads on demand of public within a period of three
months2
6. On February 22, 2023, this court, inter alia , issued several directions
aimed at ensuring eff ective implementation of the provisions outlined in the
two acts, which is reproduced below:
(I) the respondent - Union shall place on record the steps taken
pursuant to the judgment of this Court, viz.-a-viz. The Status of
implementation of the 2013 Act i.e., Prohibition of Employment as
Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 including the
steps towards rehabilitation of such persons falling within the defi nition
of 'Manual Scavengers'.
(II) Steps taken towards abolition/demolition of Dry Latrines, statewise.
(III) Status of Dry Latrines and Safai Karamcharies in Cantonment
Boards and Railways.
2
(pg. 17-20 of Writ Petition)
1093
(IV) Employment of Safai Karamcharies in Railways and Cantonments
Boards whether directly or indirectly i.e., through Contractors or
otherwise.
(V) State-wise set up of Municipal Corporation and the nature of
equipment (as well as the description of technical equipment), deployed
by such bodies to mechanize sewage cleaning.
(VI) The feasibility of developing internet-based solutions for real
time tracking of sewage deaths and action taken by their concerned
authorities including the appropriate Government towards payment
of compensation and rehabilitation of families.
7. Further, this court also added as parties to the present proceedings,
the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice &
Empowerment (hereafter "Union"); the National Commission for Safai
Karamcharis (hereafter "NCSK") ; the National Commission for Scheduled
Castes (hereafter "NCSC"), and the National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes (hereafter "NCST"). The court appointed Mr. K Parmeshwar,
Advocate as Amicus Curie. On April 12, 2023, this court took note of
two notifi cations issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 4.6.2014, and
13.10.2014 which stipulates that individuals engaged in cleaning sanitary
latrines in passenger coaches and railway tracks at stations would not be
subject to the prohibitions set forth in the Act of 2013 if they are provided
with basic equipment such as face masks, gloves, boots, and brooms.
Additionally, this court considered the observations made by the NCSK
regarding the lack of action by the Railways, as presented in reports included
in the compilation submitted to the court by the Amicus Curiae. In light of
this, the court directed the Railways to submit a specifi c affi davit addressing
these aspects.
8. 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. In response, this court
observed :
"[...] learned Additional Solicitor General should indicate a
practical method for the operationalization of the Central Monitoring
Committee. That Committee comprises of more than 20 members
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
and has apparently not met for the last three years. The record also
discloses that in the last ten years, the Committee has met seven
times".
9. The Amicus submitted that Article 15, 17, 23 and 24 of the
Constitution form an emancipatory Code. He submitted that the content of
these fundamental rights must per force include the right for the oppressed
classes to break away from oppressive structures and move to alternative
sources of dignifi ed employment. In other words, the aforesaid Articles
form a fundamental right to emancipation from oppressive structures.
He contended that the emancipatory code is referrable to the preambular
principle of fraternity and hence capable of horizontal application of
fundamental rights. The 2013 Act is in furtherance of this emancipatory
code, and thus attains constitutional status.
10. After going through the scheme of the 2013 Act, the Amicus
Curiae submitted that the 1993 Act as well as the 2013 Act were both made
in furtherance of the right to dignity of the individual. He made reference
to the emancipatory nature of the Act in its identifi cation, prohibition,
criminalization of manual scavenging and the rehabilitation provisions for
manual scavengers.
11. In so far as institutions created under the 1993 Act, 2013 Act and
the NCSK Act are concerned, he pointed to the factual position that the most
of the institutions are non/sub functional. These institutions, he submitted,
are at the National, State, District and Sub-district level.
12. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the survey envisioned under
the 2013 Act is inextricable from the emancipatory nature of the Act, in
that without a survey there cannot be any identifi cation and rehabilitation
of manual scavengers. He submitted, with reference to the judgments of the
High Court of Bombay in Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of
Maharashtra3 and High Court of Karnataka in All India Council of Trade
Unions v. Union of India4, that a survey must be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules made thereunder.
3
(2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3002)
4
(2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420)
1095
13. The surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018, he contended, were not
in accordance with the 2013 Act and Rules and thus cannot be considered as
surveys. More specifi cally, he urged that the NCSK itself in its annual report
has stated that till date, no reliable fi gure is available with the Government
about the manual scavenging in the country and the fi gure is varying at
various places. He also linked the absence of institutions under the 2013
Act and Rules to the inadequacies of the Survey process by contending
that when the institutions for a Survey have not been put in place, there
is no question of a Survey being conducted in terms of the Act and Rules.
To this end, he also cited the judgment of this Court in Safai Karamchari
Andolan v. Union of India5 where this court held that the 2013 Survey
was inadequate as it was confi ned only to 3546 statutory towns and did
not extend to rural areas. This Court also held that the States were able
to identify only a miniscule proportion of the number of people actually
engaged in manual scavenging.
14. On the aspect of sewer deaths, he brought to the attention of this
Court the defi nitions of 'hazardous cleaning' under Section 2(d) of the 2013
Act as well as the defi nitions of 'sewer' and 'septic tank' under Sections 2(p)
and 2(q). He stated that though the Act prohibits hazardous cleaning under
Section 7 and 9, no specifi c bar is made to the manual cleaning of sewers
and septic tanks as long as protective gear is given. To this end, he referred
to Rule 3(1) of the 2013 Rules and laid stress on the words "No person
shall be allowed to clean a sewer manually" to contend that the statutory
scheme recognized that entry into a sewer or a manhole can only be after
the sewage is totally emptied by machines.
15. It was argued that there is a legislative vacuum in so far as
rehabilitation for hazardous workers is concerned. The sole rehabilitation,
according to him, is by virtue of the judgment of this Court in Safai
Karamchari Andolan (supra) where this Court granted compensation of Rs.
10 lakhs to the family of a person who died in a sewer.
16. He argued that constitutionally speaking, hazardous cleaning
amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution as explained
5
2014 (4) SCR197
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
by this Court in People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India6
(para 13-14). It was further highlighted that the Act of 2013 intends that no
person should come in direct contact with human excreta and hazardous
cleaning whereby as person is coerced to immerse himself in or be in contact
with human excreta without protective gear/safety precautions is nothing
but forced labour prohibited under Article 23. A narrow interpretation of
"forced labour", restricting it to only those cases where there is lack of
remuneration, is contrary the intention of Article 23. This is because such
a narrow interpretation would fail to address structural discrimination and
would also render the phrase "other similar forms of forced labour" otiose.
Additionally, it was further submitted that "consent" given by the worker
to perform hazardous cleaning would not mean that labour is not forced.
Reliance placed on People's Union for Democratic Rights (supra) followed
in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan7.
17. Amicus further contended that like manual scavenging, hazardous
cleaning is also a practice borne out of 'untouchability' and must be
prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution. He brought to the attention
of the Court Section 7A of the Civil Rights Act, 1955, which specifi cally
bars any scavenging or sweeping or any other job of a similar nature as
being an enforced disability arising out of 'untouchability'. The Amicus
Curiae argued that if it is accepted by the Court that hazardous cleaning
is violative of Article 23, then the question of persons engaged in sewage
cleaning having practiced it on their own volition does not arise.
18. The Amicus urged that is important to note that two statutory riders
empower the executive to statutorily carve out exceptions, even though they
are couched as explanations: fi rst, the defi nition of "insanitary latrine" in
Section 2(e) states that:
"a water fl ush latrine in a railway passenger coach, when cleaned by
an employee with the help of such devices and using such protective
gear, as the Central Government may notify in this behalf, shall not
be deemed to be an insanitary latrine."
6
1983 (1) SCR 456
7
1983 (2) SCR 271
1097
Second, the explanation to the defi nition of "manual scavenger" in
Section 2(1)(g) specifi es that
"a person engaged or employed to clean excreta with the help of such
devices and using such protective gear, as the Central Government may
notify in this behalf, shall not be deemed to be a 'manual scavenger'
19. It was submitted that these riders should be given the narrowest
possible interpretation, given that the statute punishes untouchability and
inhuman labour. It was further urged that the protective gear and devices
referred to must be of such nature that they achieve substantial or near total
mechanization of the process so that the dignity of the labourer is maintained
and no structural discrimination is perpetuated.
20. Regarding NCSK's working, it was submitted that at present, it
has only Chairperson, Vice-chairperson and one additional member with
four member posts lying vacant. Furthermore, there was no commission
in place during FY 2022-23. In terms of Section 32 of the 2013 Act, even
state government are expected to notify a state commission with the same
powers as that of NCSK at the state level. However, State commission for
Safai Karamcharis exist in only few states.
21. The learned Amicus also pointed out that Section 29(3) of the Act,
requires the Central Monitoring Committee8 (hereafter "CMC") to meet in
every six months. However, between 2013 to 2022, it met only seven times.
After a gap of 3 years, CMC met for the eight time after the intervention of
this court's order dated 02.05.2023. Similarly, the Amicus fi led data regarding
non convening of State Monitoring Committee9 (hereafter "SMC") for
8
According to Section 29, the Central Monitoring Committee (CMC), consisting of
the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, Chairperson of the NCSC,
Minister of State in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Chairperson
of NCSK, Secretaries of various Ministries, etc., shall be constituted. The functions
of CMC, as delineated under Section 30, are- monitoring and advising the Central
Government and State Government for eff ective implementation of the Act,
coordinating the functions of all concerned agencies, and looking into any other matter
incidental to or connected with implementation of the Act.
9
Section 26 of the 2013 Act provides for the constitution of a State Monitoring Committee
(SMC) in every state consisting of the Chief Minister of State or a Minister nominated
by him, the Minister-in-charge of the Scheduled Castes Welfare, representatives of the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and Safai Karamcharis, not less than two
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
some states and non-constitution of District Vigilance Committee (hereafter
"DVC") in some states as well and showed glaring inconsistencies in
constitution of SMCs from four diff erent sources of data.
22. Further, as per Rules of 201310 with regard to creation of State
Level Survey Committee (hereafter "SLSC") and District Level Committee
(hereafter "DLC") responsible for overseeing the survey process till the
"publication of fi nal consolidated list of the manual scavengers" in the
respective district/state, it was highlighted that only Chhattisgarh and Odisha
have constituted SLCs, with Odisha being the lone state to constitute a
DLSC. However, the Union's affi davit dated 05.07.23, claims that Karnataka,
Rajasthan, and West Bengal have also constituted Survey Committees, but
no information is provided regarding Chhattisgarh and Odisha.
23. The Amicus summed up by suggesting that the court should direct
creation of a task force under the aegis of CMC and conduct a fresh survey
by relying on inadequate data under 2013 and 2018 Survey, NCSK's Annual
reports fi led for the year 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, CMC's
meeting held on 05.07.2023 and uncertainty regarding reliable data fi led in
Union's affi davit. Further to set up institutions under the Act of 2013 and
Rules and take measures to identify and compensate deceased persons due
to sewer cleaning.
Submissions on behalf of intervenors
24. Ms Jayna Kothari learned senior counsel representing THAMATE,
Centre for rural empowerment, a registered society submitted that the court
to give purposive interpretation to explanation (b) of Section 2(1)(g) so
as to give wide interpretation to the defi nition of manual scavenger. This
interpretation would include anyone engaged in manual cleaning, whether
in sewers or septic tanks, regardless of whether they use equipment or
protective gear since the cleaning process is manual. This will ensure them
being covered as manual scavengers for rehabilitation and relief under
Section 11-16 of the Act of 2013. It was suggested that even providing some
minor protective gear such as just the gloves would exempt the coverage
members of the State Legislature belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc. Its functions,
as under Section 27, are the same as those of the Central Monitoring Committee
10 Rule 11 read with Rule 2© and 2(j)
1099
of that person from the defi nition of manual scavenger in the existing
section. To emphasize on giving the defi nition a purposive interpretation,
Ms. Kothari placed reliance on Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage
Board v A. Rajappa11, wherein the Supreme court expanded the defi nition
of industry and on X v. Principal Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare,
Govt. of NCT Delhi12, wherein this court interpretated the provisions of
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 2021 to include single
and unmarried women.
25. Learned counsel further emphasized on the need for mechanization
and graded implementation of inclusive defi nition of manual scavenger.
Examples like Bandicoot13, were provided to illustrate the potential for
modern technology. It was noted that many countries have replaced the term
"manholes" with "machine holes" emphasizing the signifi cance of change
in language. A graded timeline was suggested to completely mechanize
the process. Counsel also submitted 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. Lastly, some directions were also suggested such as reporting
on the surveys for the identifi cation of manual scavengers being done in
all districts, issuing identifi cation cards, compliance with rehabilitation
requirements and holding meetings of monitoring committees at the State,
district and sub-district levels. Additionally, it was proposed that data
should be segregated to specify the number of women engaged in manual
scavenging.
26. The MAANGANGGO India International, NGO/Trust based in
New Delhi, impleaded as intervenor prayed for the issuance of a writ or
appropriate measure to direct the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog (National
Institution for Transforming India) to formulate a sustainable and time-bound
Comprehensive Policy Action Plan which should include the mandatory
adoption of modern technology to fully mechanize sewerage cleaning, with
the declaration of manual scavenging in any form as a punishable off ense.
It should also address the need for upgrading outdated and hazardous
11 [1978] 3 SCR 207
12 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.
13 a robot developed in 2018
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
1100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
sanitation infrastructure, promoting eco-friendly waste disposal methods,
ensuring compulsory free education for the children of manual scavengers,
particularly girls, and providing vocational training and fi nancial incentives
for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers, with a special focus on women
who constitute a signifi cant portion of those aff ected by this practice.
Submission on behalf of Respondents
27. This court by order dated May 2, 2023, requested the Additional
Solicitor General (ASG) to propose a practical method for operationalization
of the CMC. The ASG responded to that CMC did not convene for the past
three years that these committees were conducted annually and last being
on January 8, 2020. However, subsequent meetings could not be held due
to COVID pandemic. Meanwhile, the tenure of the committee members,
including those representing civil societies, have expired during this period.14
28. Regarding the survey, the ASG emphasized that the responsibility
for conducting the survey falls under the mandate of 2013 Act. According to
the provisions of this Act, the Chief Executive Offi cer of the municipality or
gram panchayat is responsible for overseeing the completion of the survey.
Furthermore, in accordance with the 2013 rules, a "District Level Survey
Committee" chaired by the District Magistrate is tasked with monitoring and
supervising the survey process at the district level. It was submitted that the
2013 Act itself does not envisage a nationwide survey of manual scavengers
conducted by the central government; instead, it mandates localized surveys
to be carried out by local bodies.15 Anyhow, the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment has introduced the "Swachhata Abhiyaan" mobile app to
allow the general public to report on insanitary latrines and any associated
manual scavengers and therefore, the survey of manual scavenging is
ongoing through the use of such mobile app. However, the ministry in its
affi davit has stated that the app has not received credible data and the same
has to be verifi ed by the concerned administration.
29. It was further submitted that the government incurred an
expenditure of ₹10.48 Crore for conducting the survey in 2013 followed
14 (Union of India's Note dt.12.05.2023 (Vol. 6)/ Union of India's Note dt.26.07.2023
(Vol. 5)
15 Union of India's Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
1101
by payment of compensation to identifi ed manual scavengers to tune of
approximately ₹ 55.52 Crores.