DR. BALRAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA, 2023

DR. BALRAM SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA, 2023

Case Title and Citation

DR. BALRAM SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Citation: 2023 INSC 950 Case Number: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 324 OF 2020 Date of Judgment: October 20, 2023

Factual Background

The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking directions against the Union of India, all States, and Union Territories to effectively implement the provisions of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (Act 1993) and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (Act 2013). The petitioner claimed that manual scavenging persists despite these enactments and that essential statutory provisions, including those related to rehabilitation and employment opportunities, have not been implemented.

The issue stems from centuries-old stigmatizing social practices where a large mass of people were forced to perform the meanest task of manual scavenging. The 2013 Act was intended to ensure rehabilitation following identification, but previous surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018 were found to be insufficient, inconsistent, and not conducted according to the mandated statutory procedures and rules. Furthermore, many of the institutions required under the 2013 Act (such as the Central Monitoring Committee, State Monitoring Committees, and Vigilance Committees) were found to be non-functional or not constituted.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the previous surveys conducted (2013 and 2018) for identifying and rehabilitating manual scavengers were valid and adequate under the scheme of the 2013 Act and Rules.
2. Whether the constitutional and statutory mandate requires the provision of rehabilitative entitlements to families of persons who die while performing hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks, even though the 2013 Act primarily addresses ‘manual scavenging’.
3. Whether the failure of the Union and State Governments to constitute or operationalize the statutory institutions (like monitoring and survey committees) renders the implementation of the 2013 Act ineffective.
4. Whether the employment of a person for hazardous cleaning without protective gear and cleaning devices amounts to forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued several mandatory directions to the Union, States, and Union Territories to ensure the complete eradication of manual scavenging and the proper rehabilitation of victims and their families. The Court rejected the validity of the previous surveys and mandated the conduct of a fresh National Survey.

The Court further directed that:

• The compensation for sewer deaths be increased to ₹30 lakhs (retroactively applicable to dependents of victims who have not yet been paid).
• Compensation for victims suffering disabilities shall have a minimum threshold of ₹10 lakhs, increasing to ₹20 lakhs for permanent, economically helpless disability.

Reason for the decision

1. Failure of Surveys and Institutions: The Court found the earlier 2013 and 2018 surveys inadequate and inconsistent, demonstrating a “complete and utter lack of bonafides”. Since the Act and Rules prescribe a particular method and manner of survey, any other method is necessarily forbidden (“the thing must be done in that way or not at all”). Furthermore, the lack of constitution and non-functioning of key statutory institutions (Central Monitoring Committee, State Commissions, Survey Committees) paralyzed the implementation of the 2013 Act, reducing it to a “dead letter”.
2. Constitutional Mandate (Article 17 and 23): The 2013 Act is an emancipatory statute and a manifestation of the constitutional codes guaranteeing equality, freedom against exploitation, and prohibition of untouchability (Articles 15, 17, 23, and 24). Hazardous cleaning, like manual scavenging, is a manifestation of untouchability and violates Article 17.
3. Forced Labour: Employing hazardous workers without minimum protective gear and cleaning devices violates human dignity and constitutes forced labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution. Any argument that a worker voluntarily consented to such hazardous work is irrelevant because it violates human dignity and is based on unequal bargaining power due to poverty.
4. Rehabilitation of Hazardous Workers: The liberative nature of the statute and the objective of dignity (Article 21) require that families of those who die in sewers or septic tanks due to hazardous cleaning must be given long-term rehabilitative entitlements (like scholarships and skill training), akin to those provided to manual scavengers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court confirmed that the eradication of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning is a constitutional obligation stemming from the fundamental rights of dignity and equality. The Court mandated a complete overhaul of the implementation framework, requiring full mechanization, the setting up of all statutory bodies in a time-bound manner, and substantially increasing the compensation paid to victims of sewer deaths and disabilities to ensure the financial upliftment and social transformation of the affected families.