Balram Singh v. Union of India: Direction to eliminate Manual Scavenging (2023)

Case Title: Balram Singh v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 INSC 950

Through this case analysis, I aim to examine The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Balram Singh v. Union of India which addressed the persistent practice of manual scavenging in India despite legislative prohibitions. This case is a landmark as it highlighted the grim ground reality of the application of the legislation relating to Manual Scavenging. This Case Analysis will deal with the legal jurisprudence, the socio-legal implications and the judgement’s impact on manual scavenging in India.

Introduction

Manual scavenging- the practice of removing human excreta from public streets, latrines, septic tanks, gutters and sewers manually- persists in India, despite the government’s continuous efforts to eradicate it. The Indian Constitution itself ensures to all the rights against untouchability and inequality. Since time immemorial, this practice has been driven by caste, class and other social dividers. Individuals are trapped in this occupation by birth, and generations to come face social stigma despite all the welfare measures taken by the government to destigmatize it. The present case marks a significant judicial intervention with respect to human rights violations and social depravities still persistent in the social fabric of India.

Historical Background

Manual scavenging in India has roots tied to the arrival of the British in India. British settlers were the ones who brought the concept of a public toilet to India. In the absence of a proper drainage and waste management system, containers were used in the toilets, which needed to be emptied out on a daily basis. An effective solution to this issue was found to be employing people to do this job.

For such a demeaning and dehumanising exercise, the lower caste individuals, who were regarded as the untouchables, were found to be an apt choice. Over time, this occupation has become associated with people’s castes, and they are often known by their profession. As a result, they continue to live their lives as pariahs and rejects despite all the efforts by the government to eradicate this practice.

In an attempt to deal with the problems of the manual scavenging the Government of India introduced “Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993” and the “Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.” These legislative instruments derive their purpose from Fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India. Article 17-23 directly or indirectly, work to protect the rights of Manual Scavengers. Another one of the governments measures to help manual scavengers is a special commission for Safai Karamcharis which was formed under the “Safai Karamchari Act, 1993.”

Facts of Case

In the present case, a petition was filed under A.32 of the Indian Constitution against the Center, claiming that they had failed to correctly implement the legislative instruments enacted for the welfare of the individuals involved in this occupation. As a result, the petitioner demanded adequate actions to be taken by the government to punish and penalize the persons responsible for the employment of manual scavengers engaged in cleaning and emptying the dry toilets, insanitary latrines, ditches and pits. The legal issues highlighted in this case were as follows:

Whether the present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the objects of Article 17, Article 21, and Article 23 of the Indian Constitution are being violated?
Whether the Union or appropriate government does not take adequate measures and does not frame policies or issues directions for the welfare of manual scavengers?
Whether the Union is responsible for the liabilities and compensations for the negligence and non-compliance of the provisions of the said overt Acts?

Petitioner’s Contention

The following points were primarily argued upon and highlighted by the petitioner-

Enhanced Scope of the Legislation and Compensations: The petitioner had requested the enhanced scope of the 1993 and 2013 Acts, demanding increased compensation of ₹10,00,000 to families of those who passed away while performing sewerage work since 1993, highlighting the state’s continuous failure to protect vulnerable citizens.

Enforcement of fundamental rights: The petitioner emphasized the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 15,17,2 3 and 24 of the Constitution, asserting the need for judicial intervention to enforce these rights and ensure social justice for marginalized communities.

Establishment of survey committees: The petitioner advocated for establishing state level survey committees and district level survey committees to conduct comprehensive surveys and prepare consolidated lists of manual scavengers, facilitating targeted interventions.

Localized Surveys for rehabilitation: The petitioner highlighted the mandate under the 2013 Act for localized rehabilitation surveys, underscoring the responsibility of Chief Executive Officers of municipalities and gram panchayats in completing these surveys to identify and assist affected individuals.

Respondents’ Submission

The respondent, on behalf of the Union of India countered the above submissions by enumerating measures initiated to combat manuals scavenging. The respondent advanced the following arguments:

Efforts at rehabilitation and infrastructure development: The respondent contended that mammoth efforts have been put into identifying manual scavengers for rehabilitation, including the construction of 60.81 lakh sanitary toilets and the declaration of 650 out of 766 districts free from manual scavenging as signs of advances in sanitization infrastructure.
Conversion of dry toilets: According to the respondent, dry toilets found prior to 2013 have been demolished and renovated into sanitary toilets, reflecting commitment to eradicate practices involved with and enabling manual scavenging.
Provisions for compensation: The respondent assured that compensation was made to 948 families of people who expired while performing sewerage jobs, and to date, no deaths have occurred as a result of manual scavenging since the enactment of the 1993 act.
Limitations of the National Commision: The respondent highlighted the limited powers and scope of the powers of the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, citing its inability to summon officials because it is a non-statutory and non-constitutional body and hence has its hands tied, owing to institutional limitations.
Staffing Shortages: The respondent pointed out that staff shortages were a hindrance to the accomplishment of administrative duties and the proper functioning of the Commission.

To summarize, the petitioner’s submission highlighted systematic failures and called for greater accountability, while the respondent shed light on the ongoing efforts and prevailing challenges in combating manual scavenging. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, attempted to balance these views by reaffirming constitutional principles and calling for specific and targeted action for improving enforcement and rehabilitation.

Judgement

The Supreme Court, in this case passed a landmark judgment upholding the petition and laying down detailed directions to eliminate manual scavenging. The court ruling emphasized the constitutional responsibilities of the state as well as the ideal implementation of the existing legislation.

One of the most important aspects highlighted by the court was directing increased compensation. Sensing the seriousness of the damage caused to manual scavengers and their families, the court increased the compensation provided for the deaths of manual scavengers while on the job from rupees 10,00,000 to 30,00,000 Which is to be given to the families of the deceased. The apex court also directed payment of compensation for injuries incurred in the course of such work, recognizing the largescale harm caused by this gnarly practice.

Further, the court instructed the Union government to take sufficient measures and devise holistic policies for the eradication of manual scavenging by nipping it at the root, from the society, underlining the importance of strong, persistent efforts to get rid of this dehumanizing practice. The court also made it abundantly clear how the government is to be held responsible for seeing to it that there is no violation of Articles 15, 17, 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Reasserting the responsibility of the state to protect basic fundamental rights, in the furtherance of which, remove manual scavenging in tow.

The judgment further instructed the Union, along with other government bodies and statutory organizations to effectively rehabilitate the manual scavengers by providing directions and bringing them into the mainstream society with dignity and respect.

The rationale of the judgment is premised on the following pillars:

Constitutional Imperatives- It was strongly reiterated that the practice of manual scavenging is a direct attack on constitutional safeguards against untouchability, the right to life with dignity and a ban on forced labor provided by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Manual scavenging is to be viewed as a negation of the basic values of the Indian Constitution and the denial of basic human rights.

Legislative Inadequacy- The Court acknowledged that despite the enactment of the 1993 and 2013 Act, implementation has been manifestly inadequate, with the statutory machinery failing to function effectively. This recognition highlighted the gap between legislative intent and the on-ground reality.

State’s responsibility- It was reiterated that the primary responsibility for eliminating manual scavenging and rehabilitating those involved in it lies with the state, necessitating concrete action at the center, state and local levels, this highlighted the necessity of a multifaceted approach involving all three levels of governance.

Analysis

This judgment is a powerful assertion of constitutional principles and an exhibition of judicial activism, and an archiving force behind socioeconomic transformation. The court, in affirming the petition, made far reaching changes that emphasized the state’s responsibility to eliminate manual scavenging, increasing compensation for the affected families, and ensuring effective enforcement of existing legislation.

This judgment acts as an answer to the long-standing gap between practice and legislation, guaranteeing a more effective strategy for social justice and compliance with the Constitution. This judgment also works to widen the scope of remedial measures by covering disability caused by this work. This acknowledgement of various types of harms inflicted by manual scavenging allows for a more inclusive and holistic approach to redress, recognize and address the long-term effects on the victims and their families.

Finally, the Court’s insistence on strong implementation mechanisms, including the formation of survey committees and increased coordination among government agencies, highlights the necessity of effective enforcement and oversight, recognizing that mere enactment of laws is not enough to eradicate this deeply rooted practice.

Conclusion

This is a pivotal judgment in the continuing fight to eliminate manual scavenging and protecting the human rights of the country’s most disadvantaged and overlooked community. While it offers considerable hope for change, the long-term success of this judicial action will be dependent upon the commitment of the government, civil society and individual citizens to make these prescribed measures a reality. This is the hard-hitting reality glaring us in the face that the elimination of untouchability, manual scavenging and all other related inhumane practices demanded not only legislative enactment alone, but an all-round coordinated effort addressing the cause of these issues.

To read more articles on similar topic click here.