Prohibition Of Manual Scavenging: Supreme Court Asks Centre To Convene Meeting With Secretaries Of All States, Union Territories

A Bench of Justices Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta also directed the Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General to indicate the possible ‘discussion points’for the meeting to the Court.

The Court was considering a plea to seeking steps to curb hiring manual scavengers in the country. In February, the Court directed the Union of India to place on record the steps taken by it to prevent the employment of manual scavengers as per the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act 2013. The Court had asked the Centre to inform the steps taken in pursuance of the guidelines issued in the 2014 judgment “Safai Karamchari Andolan And Others vs. Union of India And Others”.

In Safai Karamchari Andolan judgment, the Court had issued a slew of guidelines for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers, including cash assistance, scholarship for their children, allotment of residential plots, training in livelihood skill and monthly stipends, concessional loans etc. The judgment had also issued prescribed the minimum compensation in cases of sewer deaths and directed the Railways to end manual scavenging on tracks.

During the hearing today, Advocate K Parameshwar, Amicus, informed the bench that the Indian Railways had employed cleaners for 'insanitary latrine' using protective gear. This escapes the definition of manual scavenging, he said.

“The Act says their engagement in Railway tracks is a problem. But then says employment under rules is allowed. The entire purpose of the Dry Latrines Act and earlier judgment was to have mechanised cleaning. But this brings it back.”

The Amicus Curiae said that the biggest culprit was the "Indian Railways in this instance". During the previous hearing, the Court had asked the status of Dry Latrines and Safai Karamcharies in Cantonment Boards and Railways. And whether the employment of Safai Karamcharies in Railways and Cantonments Boards were direct or indirect i.e. through contractors or otherwise.

The Bench then asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati what could be done for States which hadn't formed the committees as per the Court's earlier direction.

In view of the notifications dated June 4, 2014 and October 3, 2014, the Court asked the Indian Railways to file a specific affidavit dealing with these aspects.

“Ms. Bhati, you can take instructions from the Railways”, the Bench said.

The matter will be next heard on April 19.

Case Title: Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) 324/2020]