Case Analysis: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others (2023)

Author: Divya Agrawal is a 3rd Year Law Student (B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)) at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.

This article is a case analysis of Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others (2023) which relates to guidelines given by the honorable Supreme Court of India for eradication of the dehumanizing practice of manual scavenging. The directions were comprehensive including every possible aspect required to eradicate manual scavenging from its roots. This case is a commendable step towards elimination of such practices and also in line with the social justice enshrined in our Indian Constitution. The case highlights the prevailing status of manual scavenging in India which prompts us to go for effective implementation of social security legislations apart from implementing specific legislations made for eradication of manual scavenging.

---

Introduction

Manual scavengingis performed by lower caste people because of their social standing and lack of other employment opportunities. Seen through  the lens of labour laws, this practice causes violations of labour rights and human dignity. Various legislations are enacted to eradicate this long-standing social practice. For example- “Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993” (hereinafter “Act 1993”), “Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013” (hereinafter “Act 2013”).

According to Section 2(1)(g), a manual scavenger is, “a person engaged or employed, by an individual or a local authority or an agency or a contractor, for manually cleaning, carrying, disposing of human excreta in an insanitary latrine or in an open drain or pit, or on a railway track or in other spaces as notified.”However, equipping the person with appropriate protective clothing and gear would exclude them from the category of manual workers.

In this article, I have analysed Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Others in which the court discussed the eradication of the dehumanizing practice of manual scavenging in India.

Facts

1. Dr. Balram Singh filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution for issuing various directions to respondents regarding the blanket ban on manual scavenging and implementation of provisions of the Act of 1993 and Act of 2013.
2. According to him, these Acts were enacted with the objective of removing  manual scavenging and providing them with rehabilitation and compensation. But they weren’t implemented in its letter and spirit. There was a ‘legislative vacuum’ towards the rehabilitation of workers.
3. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar was constituted to hear the matter. They issued 14 directions to the state to eradicate manual scavenging.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the respondents failed to take the required steps for effective implementation of the 1993 and 2013 Acts?
2. Whether the object of the Acts and Articles 17, 21 and 23 of the Indian Constitution are  violated?

Contentions and Arguments from both the parties –

Appellant and Amicus Curiae:

1. Amicus contended that the 2013 Act is in furtherance of Articles 15, 17, 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution and therefore it gains a constitutional status.
2. The compensation provided to dependents of sewage workers who die should be increased.
3. It also pointed out that the Central Monitoring Committee (hereinafter “CMC”) is mandated to meet every 6 months. But between 2013 and 2022, it has met only 7 times.
4. Amicus also complained about the non-constitution of the State Level Survey Committee (hereinafter “SLSC”) and District Level Committee (hereinafter “DLC”) in various states who are tasked to oversee the surveys.
5. Amicus contended that the court should direct the establishment of a task force and conduct a fresh survey.
6. Amicus also pointed out inconsistencies in 2013 and 2018 surveys.
7. Amicus suggested that Section 2(e) and Section 2(1)(g) of the 2013 Act (which provide that if protective gears are provided to the workers then  they shouldn’t come under insanitary latrine and manual scavenging) should be provided narrow interpretation to prevent untouchability and protect human dignity.

Respondent:

1. Respondent contended that Section 11 of the 2013 Act requires localized surveys to be conducted by local bodies and not a national survey. 
2. It also argued that two nation-wide surveys were conducted in 2013 and 2018. Also, a self-declaring survey is also conducted through the “Swachhata Abhiyaan” mobile app.
3. Respondent contended that data related to manual scavengers are verified by the National Safai Karamchari Finance and Development Corporation (hereinafter “NSKFDC”) and therefore reliable.
4. Respondent argued against the establishment of a task force under CMC, citing the reason that the NAMASTE scheme formulated by the government would include 3-tier committees, doing away with the requirement of establishing a separate task force.
5. On the role of NCSK, the respondent contended that its role was limited to providing recommendations to state governments and local bodies for effective implementation of the 2013 Act and not to provide relief to aggrieved Safai Karamcahris. This is because it’s neither a constitutional nor a statutory body and also suffers from a shortage of staff.

Judgement

The court held that the government is dutybound to make sure that manual scavenging is completely eradicated. Following matters were discussed-

Interpretation of Section 11– 2013 Act has constitutional basis. Survey forms the base of the whole process. It can’t be left wholly  on the shoulders of local bodies. Detailed guidelines  for conducting survey must be given to local bodies by the central and state governments.

Insufficiency of previous surveys- Neither of the surveys (2013 and 2018) were reliable or valid as they weren’t according to the rules and methods prescribed.

Institutions- Non-setting up and non-functioning of various requisite institutions act as a barrier to effective implementation of the act.

Mechanisation- The only exception to non-mechanisation is where mechanical equipment cannot be used where the sewer is not yet operational.

Hazardous Cleaning- Article 23 prohibits forced labour and its inclusive of labour  that offends human dignity. Employment where protective gears aren’t provided to hazardous workers would be covered here. Therefore, such omission is violative of both statutory and constitutional rights.

Rehabilitation- The statute and aim of Articles 17 and 23 is to rehabilitate families of those persons who died while working in sewers or septic tanks. The dignity of the individual as mentioned in Article 21 should be protected through such rehabilitation.

The court issued 14 directions to the Union, State and UTs to completely eradicate manual scavenging ranging from forming guidelines and policies, rehabilitation, compensation, education and training, scholarships, setting up commissions and creation of a portal.

Critical Analysis

In my opinion, the court’s anguish towards the government was a necessary step to ensure strict implementation of the Act. The Judiciary wouldn’t be a mute spectator to violations of human dignity due to executive inaction. 

The court by increasing the amount of compensation in case of death or disability of sewer workers, has done a commendable job because they already come from oppressed classes of society and in many cases are the sole breadwinner of the family.

The Court also gave equal importance to monetary and non-monetary compensation to victims’ dependents.

The Court made the rehabilitation process not just a statutory right under the 2013 Act but also a constitutional right. In my opinion, it was a required step.

It adopted a wide interpretation of the definition of ‘manual scavenging’ to include those engaged in cleaning sewers and septic tanks without prescribed protective gears. Now, the government can’t escape the law by using the loophole that such workers provided with protective gears wouldn’t be eligible for rehabilitation under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.

It analyzed various previous judgements related to eradication of manual scavenging-

• “Safai Karamchari Andolan and others vs. UOI and other”– Various directions were issued by the court in the same subject-matter.
• “People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI”– It was held that ‘Hazardous Cleaning’ is forced labour under Article 23 of the Indian Constitution.

Reliance on these landmark judgements by the court pinpoints progressive approach adopted by the court in interpreting the provisions in a holistic manner.

Its Relevancy in Labour Law

This case holds great relevance in labour law. The Code on Social Security, 2020 which still awaits its implementation aims to provide social security to all workers. Some of its provisions covering manual scavengers are-

Section 2(86)  defines  organised workers. Manual scavengers fall under this category.

Section 6 provides for the constitution of the National Social Security Board and State Unorganised Workers’ Board who would recommend schemes for unorganised workers.

Chapter IX talks about Social Security for “Unorganised Workers” among others.

1. Section 113 talks about their registration with the government. This would ensure that they are provided benefits from various schemes made for their social security.
2. Section 109 provides for schemes for unorganised workers from central and state government.

While the main object of the 2013 Act is to eradicate manual scavenging, it still persists. Therefore, our parallel responsibility lies in protecting the ones who are already employed as manual scavengers in case of their death or injury. The above provisions would ensure that their dependents aren’t left to die and are provided with the required support.

Conclusion 

Eradication of manual scavenging requires serious and consistent efforts from both the government as well as the public. We as citizens of India should do our part so that these people who have been oppressed for ages can see the dawn of the day and enjoy all those freedoms that we take for granted. It’s also the obligation of the government at all levels to ensure the application of social welfare legislation in its letter and spirit. After more than 75 years of political independence, what India needs is independence from our shallow mindset.