This primer examines the ruling in the context of India’s legal framework, the historical judicial stance, the challenges in enforcement, and the practical impact of the Court’s latest intervention.
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?