Today, On 18th September, The Supreme Court fined Delhi PWD Rs.5 lakh for employing manual sewer cleaners, including a minor, just outside its premises. The bench strongly criticised the department for violating earlier prohibitions and risking workers’ lives without protective gear.
The Supreme Court imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Delhi government for unlawfully employing manual sewer cleaners, including a minor, just outside the court premises, in violation of its prior prohibitions against such practices.
A bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria expressed dissatisfaction with the PWD’s response after reports surfaced indicating that laborers were made to clean drains without protective gear outside Gate F of the Supreme Court.
The bench noted that the directions issued in October 2023 had been ignored and cautioned that FIRs could be filed against the responsible officials if violations continued.
The court stated,
“It would be reasonable to impose a cost for having undertaken such work as evidenced from the photographs annexed with this application. Hence, we direct PWD to deposit the sum of Rs 5 lakh to the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis within four weeks,”
In a warning, the Supreme Court emphasized that not only the PWD officials but also others needed to “wake up from slumber” to ensure adherence to its directives “in letter and spirit.”
The court made it clear that it would be compelled to order the registration of FIRs under the BNS and the BNSS in case of future infractions.
Senior advocate K. Parameshwar, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted the incident as a blatant disregard for the court’s binding orders. He pointed out that video evidence clearly showed the involvement of a minor, and detailed accounts of those forced into manual labor had been provided.
He remarked,
“The minor was engaged, and it’s specifically recorded in the video. A police complaint was sought to be lodged at Tilak Marg station but neither the police nor the PWD took appropriate action. This is not merely a labour law violation rather it is a breach of constitutional obligations. Let the fine be recovered from the officers themselves,”
The bench referenced its October 20, 2023, directives and dismissed the PWD counsel’s argument that the work was merely de-silting covered drains in preparation for the upcoming monsoon, asserting that the officials were at fault.
The court noted,
“In respect of the incident at Gate F and B of the Supreme Court of India, the drains have been constructed, and for desilting the said drain, the PWD has engaged the services of contractors who are said to have acquired labourers without safety gears….”
The court emphasized that the agreement between the contractor and the PWD clearly stipulated that the contractor must provide safety gear and refrain from employing laborers under 18 years of age.
It remarked,
“The orders issued by this court by order October 20, 2023 seem not to have percolated, in other words, have been consciously ignored,”
The bench continued, highlighting that the affidavit submitted by the PWD did not indicate any serious actions taken to caution contractors for their practices or to ensure the use of protective gear. Furthermore, no steps were taken to notify the contractor or issue a notice for blacklisting.
It stated,
“This clearly indicates that the officials seem to be dragging their feet…,”
The bench reiterated that it had previously made it clear that in the event of an untoward incident, the court would direct the filing of FIRs against the responsible officials.
It stated,
“At this stage, we detest from doing so for a simple reason that no incident has occurred and to ensure that neither the officials nor the contractor appointed by them allow the worker to enter the drain or soft water drain or sewer without protective gear,”
The court was addressing applications in a public interest litigation concerning the issue of manual scavenging, taking note of photographs showing hazardous cleaning practices occurring at one of its gates.
Case Title: DR. BALRAM SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 324/2020