The Delhi High Court has requested a response from the government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging laws allowing manual scavenging under the pretext of protective gear. The PIL contends that such legislation perpetuates the practice of manual scavenging by providing a false sense of safety through protective equipment.
New Delhi: On February 20th, the Delhi High Court requested a response from the government regarding Public Interest Litigation (PIL) contesting the constitutional validity of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavenging Rules, 2013.
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora’s division bench have summoned the Union Government via the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Delhi Government.
Background
The petition was filed by a septic tank cleaner and a daily wage laborer, whose brother, a sewer cleaner, tragically died in 2017 while working in Lajpat Nagar. The PIL seeks the removal of Sections 2(1)(g), 13, 14, 15, 16, and 39 of the 2013 Act, along with the associated Rules, citing violations of Articles 14, 17, 21, and 24 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, it demands rehabilitation and benefits for sewer cleaners compared to those for manual scavengers under the Act.
“These sections promote the concept of “compromised dignity,” which is alien to the Indian Constitution, and allow the idea of purity and pollution to continue under the garb of sanitation work. Invisibilizing manual scavengers is a violation of the constitutional right against the right to life with human dignity and does not stand the constitutional test manifested in the expansive and anti-exclusionary right to life,”
the plea stated.
Advocate Pawan Reley argued that the “cosmetic effect” produced by Explanation (b) of Section 2(1)(g) not only falls short of eliminating the degrading practice of manual scavenging and providing justice to those involved but also legitimizes this practice legally by establishing an artificial distinction among manual scavengers based on the use of protective gear.
“Therefore, all the benefits, such as rehabilitation, scholarships, etc., have been snatched away from manual scravengers with protective gear, for which they are equally eligible, like manual scravengers without protective gear, without considering the fact that the nature of work remains the same.”
-The advocate Pawan Reley contended
The petition also disputes Explanation (a) of Section 2(1)(g) of the 2013 Act, inferring the bar of daily wage workers and temporary workers from protection. It contends that such exclusions contradict the Act’s objective of prohibiting manual scavenging and must be rectified.
“This explanation has created a further unreasonable classification between the manual scavengers because it excludes the daily wage, temporary workers, and Jajmani workers to come under the ambit of Section 2(1)(g), thereby making them redundant to avail of the benefits for which they are absolutely eligible because the nature of work, which is to clean, carry, dispose of, or handle in any manner the human excreta, remains the same whether employed on a daily wage basis or on a contractual or permanent basis.”
The bench directed the Government to submit its response to the plea within eight weeks and scheduled the case for further review on July 4th.
Case Title: KALLU vs. . Union of India and Anr.
