Supreme Court Directs Payment Of Rs 30 Lakhs Compensation Within 4 Weeks For Manual Sewer Cleaners' Deaths In Metros In Last 3 Months

Following its previous order summoning officials from major cities (Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bengaluru) over unsatisfactory affidavits on banning manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning, the Supreme Court yesterday noted that the new affidavits were cleverly worded to create a false impression of compliance. It warned that failure to file proper affidavits in the next hearing would lead to suo-moto contempt proceedings.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar has been hearing a writ petition seeking a ban on manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning. The bench yesterday again expressed that the practice of manual scavenging has to be stopped.

The Court has also directed the metropolitan authorities to pay within four weeks Rs 30 lakh compensation to the kin of the persons who died in the last three months.

"All the officers shall pay within four weeks from today the entire compensation [of 30 lakhs for death under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013] to the next of the kin of the deceased in all the deaths which have taken place in the last three months, if not already paid," Court ordered.

On the last occasion, the Court noted that the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) and Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board did not give any explanation as to how deaths due to manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning have occurred when the authorities claimed that the practice has stopped in their respective cities.

Yesterday, Director(S&DM), DJB, Pankaj Kumar Atray; Municipal Commissioner, KMC, Dhaval Jain; and Managing Director of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board, Telangana, K Ashok Reddy were present in the Court today.

The Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagra Palika (BBMP) was also present, as Bengaluru had not been any affidavit. 

Delhi

The advocate representing the DJB submitted that the sewer line in which the deaths occurred is not in the jurisdiction of the DJB. She insisted that this could be put in an additional affidavit. It should be noted that on the last hearing, DJB stated in its affidavit that manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning are totally prohibited but the Court found that the affidavit nowhere answered the real question, which is how the deaths.

Justice Dhulia directly asked Atray to answer whether this came under his jurisdiction or not. Atray replied that it does but he claimed that there had been a "private unauthorised entry" and no staff of the DJB was present.

"Without your authorisation, you may not be responsible, but some of the officers must have been...you are creating a bigger problem. We will record everything and see if it's a wrong statement..," Justice Dhulia responded.

Justice Kumar added: "We will initiate action...Manual scavenging has to stop, otherwise, we will be initiate suo moto contempt." Justice Dhulia also stated that on the next hearing, if proper affidavits are not filed, the Court will "be constrained to file FIR against the [authorities]".

The Court suggested that DJB file a detailed affidavit and admit that the death has happened if it's the truth.

The Court ordered:

"Pursuant to order dated so and so, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Atray,  Director (S&DM), should file a detailed affidavit as to whether the death of a worker while doing manual scavenging in the New Defence Colony how and in what manner occurred which is admittedly under the jurisdiction of Delhi Jal Board. Moreover, the earlier affidavit filed by Atray does not disclose the precise date manual scavenging has been stopped and what measures or machines they have been using."

Bengaluru

The Advocate representing the Commissioner of BBMP informed the Court that since 2013, it has not been carrying out any manual scavenging. It is also claimed that since 2017, no deaths have occurred. Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari intervened and stated that the affidavit is cleverly drafted because it only states no manual scavenging is been carried out, whereas all forms of it, including manual sewer cleaning are also prohibited.

Senior Advocate and amicus K Parmeshwar submitted as against the claims made by BBMP that no deaths have occurred, the official statistics by National Safai Karamchari reveal otherwise. Reading the statistics, Justice Kumar pointed out that 4 deaths have occurred in 2024 and 3 deaths in 2023.

The commissioner clarified that BBMP's affidavit is based on the information provided by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB).

"Your affidavit is based on incorrect information or at least half the information [is false]...You say 2017[the year from which deaths did not occurred], we will count from 2017. 4 deaths in 2017, and since then there has been more than 20 deaths," Justice Dhulia responded.

After the Court found that the affidavit filed was false, Justice Dhulia warned: "Now listen, we are making it very clear and upon the next order, if the affidavit is unsatisfactory, we will order the Registry for an FIR. Be conscious of that. This is [about] killing somebody."

Order: "His affidavit filed has been read in this Court and has been reverted by the amicus Parmeshwar shows that the affidavit was not correct and even after 2017, more than two dozen deaths have occurred due to manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning. There is no recital as to what machines are being used and since when they are being used and there is no averment as to whether all involvement in all hazardous cleaning has been stopped. Affidavit seems to be very clearly drafted in order to create false illusion...At this stage, we say nothing further than this but we expect the concerned officer to file better affidavit bring all relevant facts on next hearing. Website of National Safai Karamchari shows 22 deaths have taken place from 2017 onwards."

Personal presence of the Commissioner not required in next hearing, the Court added orally.

Hyderabad 

As for Hyderabad, Parameshwar stated that the affidavit did not explain how and when manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning were stopped. Neither has it explained why three deaths have occurred in the last year due to it. Senior Advocate Manisha Karia, for the MD of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board, explained that the death did not occur due to manual scavenging but it occurred due to the attempt to urbanise the sewer pipelines which were laid during the civil war occurred during Nizam's time.

Parameshwar refuted this and submitted that as per the police statement, all three persons who died were asked to clean the sewer. Particularly, they died due to inhaling poisonous gas. Justice Dhulia orally remarked that the affidavit was cleverly drafted to create illusion.

"Now does Nizam come in here?," Justice Dhulia questioned. The Court also found that after its order, three deaths occurred subsequently. But it also appreciated Hyderabad for having adequate state-of-art machines which even Delhi does not have enough in number.

"The three deaths in Hyderabad have been described not due to hazardous cleaning but for repair of some old pipes which is not entirely correct as this operation cannot be treated differently from manual sewage cleaning as it involves the same amount of his. However, it is pressed that after 2021 there have been no deaths in the city of Hyderabad as seen from the website of Safai Karamchari," order states.

Kolkata

On the last occasion, the Court directed the Chief Secretary, West Bengal, to clarify under whose watch and jurisdiction manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning were done in Kolkata and the peripheral areas of Kolkata including the area under Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the Chief Secretary submitted that FIR was registered in respect of the three deaths that occurred as of February 2. He also stated that the contractor involved has paid the competition of 10 lakhs. But the Court had ordered compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs. 

Sankaranarayanan responded that the Court can direct them to pay compensation of Rs 30 lakhs. He added that this is a statutory compensation under the legislation and if the authorities pay this amount it would be deemed as accepting the incident as manual scavenging.  

Case Details: DR. BALRAM SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 324/2020