Holding

The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 is an emancipatory statute that requires the Union and State governments to issue guidelines, conduct proper surveys, constitute all mandated institutions, and ensure complete eradication of manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning, with rehabilitation and enhanced compensation for victims.

Summary

Dr. Balram Singh filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking the full implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993. The Court examined whether the statutes require only local surveys or a national survey, the validity of the 2013 and 2018 surveys, and the failure to constitute mandated institutions. It held that the 2013 Act is an emancipatory statute that obliges the Union and State governments to lay down guidelines, conduct proper surveys, and establish the required bodies. The Court also declared that hazardous cleaning without protective gear amounts to forced labour prohibited by Article 23 and that compensation for sewer deaths must be increased to Rs. 30 lakhs. Consequently, the Court issued comprehensive directions for eradication of manual scavenging, mechanisation of cleaning, rehabilitation measures, a national survey, model contracts, and a monitoring portal.

Issues considered

The extent of the Union and State governments' duty to implement the 2013 and 1993 Acts
Whether Section 11 of the 2013 Act mandates only localized surveys or a national survey
The validity and sufficiency of the 2013 and 2018 manual‑scavenger surveys
The constitutional implications of the non‑constitution of institutions under the Acts
Whether hazardous cleaning without protective gear constitutes forced labour under Article 23
Whether the differentiation between manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning violates Article 14
The appropriate quantum of compensation for sewer‑related deaths and disabilities
The need for model contracts and mechanisation to prevent manual cleaning

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Civil Rights Act, 1955s. 7A
Constitution of Indias. Article 15(2), s. Article 17, s. Article 23, s. Article 24
Contract Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1970
Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013s. 11, s. 12, s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 2(d), s. 2(g), s. 2(p), s. 2(q)
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Subjects

manual scavenginghazardous cleaningrehabilitationcompensationconstitutional lawArticle 23forced laboursurveyinstitutional implementationsanitationpublic health

Judgment

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 1083 : 2023 INSC 950

CASE DETAILS
DR. BALRAM SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 324 of 2020)
OCTOBER 20, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Implementation of the provisions of
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation
Act, 2013 and the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Employment of Manual Scavengers and
Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 – Directions by
Supreme Court – Eradication of manual scavenging in a phased manner
– Rehabilitation measures – Compensation for sewer deaths etc.:
Held: The Union should take appropriate measures and frame
policies and issue directions, to all statutory bodies to ensure that manual
sewer cleaning is completely eradicated in a phased manner, and also issue
guidelines and directions that any sewer cleaning work outsourced, or
required to be discharged, by or through contractors or agencies, do not
require individuals to enter sewers, for any purpose whatsoever – States
and Union Territories to ensure that all departments, agencies, corporations
ensure that guidelines and directions framed by the Union are embodied in
their own guidelines and directions – States to ensure that such directions
are applicable to all municipalities, and local bodies functioning within
their territories – The Union, State and Union Territories to ensure that full
rehabilitation (including employment to the next of kin, education to the
wards, and skill training) measures are taken in respect of sewage workers,
and those who die – Compensation for sewer deaths shall be Rs.30 lakhs
– Compensation stated in the case of sewer victims suﬀering disabilities,
depending upon the severity of disabilities – Mechanism be devised to
1083
1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course
of contractual or outsourced work – A model contract to be deviced, to be
used wherever contracts are to be awarded and in the event of any mishap,
the agency would lose its contract, possibly blacklisting – Modalities be
drawn for the conduct of a National Survey – NALSA shall be part of the
consultations, toward framing the policies as directed – The Union, State
and Union Territories to ensure coordination with all the commissions like
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK), State Commission
for Safai Karamcharis (NCSC) for setting up of state level, district level
committees and commissions, in a time bound manner – NCSK, NCSC,
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the Union
government to coordinate and prepare training and education modules, for
information and use by district and state level agencies, under the 2013 Act
– A portal and a dashboard, containing all relevant information, including the
information relating to sewer deaths, victims and the status of compensation
disbursement, as well as rehabilitation measures taken, and existing and
available rehabilitation policies be developed and launched – Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013–
National Commission for Safai Karamchari Act, 1993– Constitution of
India– Articles 15(2), 17, 23, 24– Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Contract Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1970. [Para 96]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – s.11 – Interpretation of – Plea of the Union
that s.11 requires localized surveys by local bodies and not a national
survey:
Held: 2013 Act is not a regular statute, it is emancipatory in character
and is a manifestation of the constitutional code of upliftment – The
groundbreaking purpose of the 2013 Act is to ensure that manual scavengers
are rehabilitated – Rehabilitation is a step after identiﬁcation – Without a
survey, rehabilitation is not workable – The statutory scheme cannot be
undermined through an interpretation that would leave the implementation
of the 2013 Act solely with the local bodies, without any guidance from the
Governments, State and Central – The Central and State Governments were
and are, duty-bound to lay down the parameters under which a local body
was mandated to conduct a survey – While the methodology of the Survey
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1085

is provided under the 2013 Rules, the trigger for conducting the Survey is
conspicuously absent from both the 2013 Rules as well as the 2013 Act –
The absence of a trigger cannot render the 2013 Act and its constitutional
commitments otiose by non-implementation – Local bodies must be guided
by the central and state governments by laying down guidelines on when a
survey must be conducted, and which local bodies must conduct a survey –
Without a policy of this nature, a local body cannot be expected to implement
the 2013 Act in a proper manner – while local governments must conduct
surveys, it was for the appropriate authorities, at both the central and state
levels, to lay down parameters for the surveys to be conducted – Prohibition
of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules,
2013 – Constitution of India – Article 17 – Civil Rights Act, 1955. [Paras
53, 54 and 56]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – s.11 – Prohibition of Employment as Manual
Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013 – r.11 – Insuﬃciency
of the previous Surveys:
Held: Neither the 2013 nor the 2018 surveys could have been
conducted as prescribed under the scheme of the 2013 Rules and the 2013
Act for the reason that the institutions entrusted with duties to conduct the
Surveys were either not constituted or were not functioning – Where the
Act and Rules prescribe a particular method and manner of survey, that
method and manner only ought to have been followed and no other method
or manner could have been followed – No provisional list u/s.11(4) was
prepared; no objections were called for and decided u/s.11(5) and no ﬁnal
list was published u/s.11(6) – In the absence of following, the contention
that there was a valid survey conducted cannot be accepted – Also, this
Court in Safai Karamchari Andolan case had noticed the short-comings of
the survey of 2013 – Hence, when this Court had already found that the
survey was insuﬃcient, the Union cannot possibly rely on the same survey
once again. [Paras 57, 60, 66]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Short-coming in the implementation – Non-
constitution of various institutions required for implementation of the
Act:
1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

Held: A major short-coming in the implementation of the 2013 Act is
the fact that the State and the Central Governments have not even constituted
the various institutions required to implement the Act– Implementation
of the statute depends on the eﬀective functioning of the institutions
like National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, State Commission for
Safai Karamcharis, Central Monitoring Committee, State Monitoring
Committee, Vigilance Committees, State/District Level Survey Committee
– Unfortunately, these institutions have not been constituted by the States
and the Union and where they have been constituted, the institutions are not
functioning at all – The Act has created the institutions to ensure a check and
balance on the implementation of the statute – However, instead of being a
check on the implementation, the lack of institutions has eﬀectively brought
the implementation of the Act to a total stand-still – Functioning of each of
the institutions dealt with speciﬁcally. [Paras 67, 68]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning,
separately treated under the 2013 Act – Plea that this violates Article
14 as there is no rational diﬀerentiation between the two:
Held: This court is not faced with a challenge to the statute –
Without a challenge to the provisions, the diﬀerentiation cannot be held
unconstitutional – Constitution of India – Article 14. [Para 82]
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 – Prohibition of Employment as
Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013 – rr.3, 5 –
Mechanization of hazardous cleaning through ‘cleaning devices’ and
‘protective gear’ – Exceptions – Discussed.
Constitution of India – Article 23 – Status of hazardous cleaning
u/Article 23 – Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013:
Held: Article 23 prohibits forced labour and makes it an oﬀence
punishable in accordance with law – The expression ‘other forms of forced
labour’ in Article 23 strike at all forms of labour which oﬀend human dignity
– This would include not just remuneration but would also include all labour
where the absolute minimum standards of safe employment are not met –
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1087

Where minimum protective gear and cleaning devices are not provided to
hazardous workers, the employment of hazardous workers amounts to forced
labour and is thus prohibited under the Constitution – The provisions for
protective gear and cleaning devices are not mere statutory rights or rules,
but are entitlements and it is due to these entitlements that the provisions
of the 2013 Act are in consonance with the Constitution – A contract for
employment of a hazardous cleaner without protective gear and cleaning
devices would violate Article 23 even if it were voluntary because such an
agreement would violate human dignity. [Paras 88, 90, 91]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Safai Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors.
(2014) 11 SCC 224 : [2014] 4 SCR 197; Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union
of India [2014] 4 SCR 197; People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union
of India [1983] 1 SCR 456; Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan [1983] 2 SCR
271; Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Board v A. Rajappa [1978] 3
SCR 207; X v. Principal Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT
Delhi 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321; Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India (2016)
7 SCC 498; State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [1964] 4 SCR 485 – referred to.
Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of Maharashtra 2021
SCC OnLine Bom 3002; All India Council of Trade Unions v. Union of
India 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 324
of 2020.
(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
Appearances:
Petitioner-in-person
Attorney General for India, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., K.
Parameshwar (Amicus Curiae), Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Ruchi
Kohli, Ms. Shradha Deshmukh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Himanshu
Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Ms. Astha Sharma, Amrish Kumar,
1088 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Mrs. Shraddha Deshmukh, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi,
Purnendu Bajpai, Mrs. Amiyavikrama Thanvi, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Ms.
Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, MV Mukunda, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Ms. Anindita
Pujari, Sanjay Jain, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1.. The unforgettable annals of our history not only have charted the
numerous sacriﬁces of the people who fought for independence from the
foreign imperial ruler but also a lesser-known freedom that for millennia
eluded a large mass of people, who were nearly invisible. They were trapped
in the thralldom of a solitude from which there was no liberation. That was
centuries old stigmatising social practices that led to their depravation, to
such levels that they were not even recognised as human beings. Among
these practices was one which generations of people, were made to perform
the meanest task of manual scavenging. It was to address this kind of
social practice and with the resolve to completely out light and emancipate
those trapped in it from the thralldom of bondage, that the constitution
framers ensured three important provisions, which stare at us like beacons,
assuring not only equality but fraternity amongst all people: the prohibition
of untouchability; the outlawing of forced or involuntary labour and the
freedom against exploitation.
2. To ﬂesh out and give shape to the objects of these provisions,
Parliament intervened and enacted several legislations. The ﬁrst was the
Civil Rights Act 1955; its provisions were amended in 1976 to outlaw the
practice of untouchability. The penalization of these severe forms with
stringent punishment was sought to be achieved by the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which was
further strengthened by later amendments. In that ensuring full economic
freedom and true emancipation were two enactments, the “Employment
of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993” (hereinafter “Act 1993”) and the “Prohibition of Employment
as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013” (hereinafter
“Act 2013”).
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1089
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

3. The present petition is ﬁled under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, seeking directions to Respondents (Union of India and all the States
and Union Territories) to implement provisions, inter alia, of the Act of
1993 and Act of 2013.
4. In the year 1993, a special Commission for Safai Karamchari
was established as per the provisions of National Commission for
Safai Karamchari Act, 1993 (hereinafter “NCSK Act”) to give its
recommendations to Government regarding speciﬁc programmes for
the welfare of Safai Karamcharis. In the same year, India took another
signiﬁcant step by prohibiting the employment of manual scavengers
responsible for the daily manual emptying of certain types of dry toilets.
Subsequently, the Parliament enacted the Act of 2013 which extended and
clariﬁed its scope to include insanitary latrines, ditches and pits. However,
the petitioner claims that the respondents have not implemented essential
provisions of these statutes. Regrettably, manual scavenging persists despite
these legislations. Petitioner prayed that Act of 1993 and 2013 should be
implemented in letter and spirit and to do so, it is necessary to impose a
blanket ban on manual scavenging, while simultaneously ensuring adequate
rehabilitation and employment opportunities for those currently engaged
in these practices.
5. This Court previously addressed this subject matter in Safai
Karamchari Andolan and Others vs. Union of India & Ors1 and after
analyzing the provisions of 2013 Act, issued following directions:
“23. We have already noted various provisions of the 2013 Act and
also in the light of various orders of this Court, we issue the following
directions:
23.1. The persons included in the ﬁnal list of manual scavengers under
Sections 11 and 12 of the 2013 Act, shall be rehabilitated as per the
provisions of Chapter IV of the 2013 Act, in the following manner,
namely:
(a) such initial, one-time cash assistance, as may be prescribed;

1 (2014) 11 SCC 224
1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

(b) their children shall be entitled to scholarship as per the relevant
scheme of the Central Government or the State Government or the
local authorities, as the case may be;
(c) they shall be allotted a residential plot and ﬁnancial assistance for
house construction, or a ready-built house with ﬁnancial assistance,
subject to eligibility and willingness of the manual scavenger as per
the provisions of the relevant scheme;
(d) at least one member of their family shall be given, subject to
eligibility and willingness, training in livelihood skill and shall be
paid a monthly stipend during such period;
(e) at least one adult member of their family shall be given, subject to
eligibility and willingness, subsidy and concessional loan for taking up
an alternative occupation on sustainable basis, as per the provisions
of the relevant scheme;
(f) shall be provided such other legal and programmatic assistance, as
the Central Government or State Government may notify in this behalf.
23.2. If the practice of manual scavenging has to be brought to a close
and also to prevent future generations from the inhuman practice of
manual scavenging, rehabilitation of manual scavengers will need
to include:
(a) Sewer deaths — Entering sewer lines without safety gear should
be made a crime even in emergency situations. For each such death,
compensation of Rs 10 lakhs should be given to the family of the
deceased.
(b) Railways — Should take time-bound strategy to end manual
scavenging on the tracks.
(c) Persons released from manual scavenging should not have to cross
hurdles to receive what is their legitimate due under the law.
(d) Provide support for digniﬁed livelihood to safai karamchari women
in accordance with their choice of livelihood schemes.
23.3. Identify the families of all persons who have died in sewerage
work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award compensation
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1091
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

of Rs 10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending
on them.
23.4. Rehabilitation must be based on the principles of justice and
transformation.
In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims several directions
such as:
(a) directing the respondents to implement provisions of the Water
Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974; The Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Environment Protection Act,
1986, The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991; The Employment of
Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993 The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and
their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and other statutes rules and regulation
pertaining to protection of environment and human health and direct
respondent to
(b) make provisions for underground swear /drainage system for
disposal of used water and for treatment of used water in all villages
towns and cities including slum areas
(c) make used water reusable after treatment for use of cattle,
agricultural and other purposes except for human drinking and
separate ponds should be made for collecting water for human use
and animals use;
(d) make provisions for supply of goods, clean and un contaminated
water in all villages, towns and cities and for this purpose to install
big water puriﬁer plans so that every citizen of the country can have
good and puriﬁed drinking water of high quality;
(e) provide for rain water harvesting system throughout the country.
It must be made a pre-requisite for raising any type of construction
(f) connect all toilets with sewage system
(g) install sewage treatment plants waste plants in all villages, towns
and cities of the country
1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

(h) convert all open drains into close one and construct all drains
underground in further
(i) provide for mechanical scavenging measures for cleaning drains
and sewages lines and to stop manual immediately
(j) repair roads within a prescribed period
(k) ﬁx liabilities of government oﬃcer who do not follow and implement
provisions for environmental protection. They should be punished for
every negligence act of non-compliance of provisions
(l) pay compensation of rupees ﬁfty 50,00,000/- (Rupees ﬁfty lacs) in
case any person dies while entering or after entering into sewage for
cleaning it manually during pendency of this petition,
(m) provide for good drinking water on demand of public in areas
where there is no provision for water supply and water available is
contaminated and not ﬁt for human use
(n) repair all roads on demand of public within a period of three
months2
6. On February 22, 2023, this court, inter alia, issued several directions
aimed at ensuring eﬀective implementation of the provisions outlined in the
two acts, which is reproduced below:
(I) the respondent – Union shall place on record the steps taken
pursuant to the judgment of this Court, viz.-a-viz. The Status of
implementation of the 2013 Act i.e., Prohibition of Employment as
Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 including the
steps towards rehabilitation of such persons falling within the deﬁnition
of ‘Manual Scavengers’.
(II) Steps taken towards abolition/demolition of Dry Latrines, state-
wise.
(III) Status of Dry Latrines and Safai Karamcharies in Cantonment
Boards and Railways.

2 (pg. 17-20 of Writ Petition)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1093
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(IV) Employment of Safai Karamcharies in Railways and Cantonments
Boards whether directly or indirectly i.e., through Contractors or
otherwise.
(V) State-wise set up of Municipal Corporation and the nature of
equipment (as well as the description of technical equipment), deployed
by such bodies to mechanize sewage cleaning.
(VI) The feasibility of developing internet-based solutions for real
time tracking of sewage deaths and action taken by their concerned
authorities including the appropriate Government towards payment
of compensation and rehabilitation of families.
7. Further, this court also added as parties to the present proceedings,
the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice &
Empowerment (hereafter “Union”); the National Commission for Safai
Karamcharis (hereafter “NCSK”) ; the National Commission for Scheduled
Castes (hereafter “NCSC”), and the National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes (hereafter “NCST”). The court appointed Mr. K Parmeshwar,
Advocate as Amicus Curie. On April 12, 2023, this court took note of
two notiﬁcations issued by the Ministry of Railways dated 4.6.2014, and
13.10.2014 which stipulates that individuals engaged in cleaning sanitary
latrines in passenger coaches and railway tracks at stations would not be
subject to the prohibitions set forth in the Act of 2013 if they are provided
with basic equipment such as face masks, gloves, boots, and brooms.
Additionally, this court considered the observations made by the NCSK
regarding the lack of action by the Railways, as presented in reports included
in the compilation submitted to the court by the Amicus Curiae. In light of
this, the court directed the Railways to submit a speciﬁc aﬃdavit addressing
these aspects.
8. During the course of proceedings, on May 2, 2023, it was brought
to notice of this court about irregular functioning of the Central Monitoring
Committee envisaged under the Act of 2013. In response, this court
observed :
“[…] learned Additional Solicitor General should indicate a
practical method for the operationalization of the Central Monitoring
Committee. That Committee comprises of more than 20 members
1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

and has apparently not met for the last three years. The record also
discloses that in the last ten years, the Committee has met seven
times”.
9. The Amicus submitted that Article 15, 17, 23 and 24 of the
Constitution form an emancipatory Code. He submitted that the content of
these fundamental rights must per force include the right for the oppressed
classes to break away from oppressive structures and move to alternative
sources of digniﬁed employment. In other words, the aforesaid Articles
form a fundamental right to emancipation from oppressive structures.
He contended that the emancipatory code is referrable to the preambular
principle of fraternity and hence capable of horizontal application of
fundamental rights. The 2013 Act is in furtherance of this emancipatory
code, and thus attains constitutional status.
10. After going through the scheme of the 2013 Act, the Amicus
Curiae submitted that the 1993 Act as well as the 2013 Act were both made
in furtherance of the right to dignity of the individual. He made reference
to the emancipatory nature of the Act in its identiﬁcation, prohibition,
criminalization of manual scavenging and the rehabilitation provisions for
manual scavengers.
11. In so far as institutions created under the 1993 Act, 2013 Act and
the NCSK Act are concerned, he pointed to the factual position that the most
of the institutions are non/sub functional. These institutions, he submitted,
are at the National, State, District and Sub-district level.
12. The Amicus Curiae submitted that the survey envisioned under
the 2013 Act is inextricable from the emancipatory nature of the Act, in
that without a survey there cannot be any identiﬁcation and rehabilitation
of manual scavengers. He submitted, with reference to the judgments of the
High Court of Bombay in Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of
Maharashtra3 and High Court of Karnataka in All India Council of Trade
Unions v. Union of India4, that a survey must be conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the 2013 Act and the Rules made thereunder.

3 (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3002)
4 (2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1095
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

13. The surveys conducted in 2013 and 2018, he contended, were not
in accordance with the 2013 Act and Rules and thus cannot be considered as
surveys. More speciﬁcally, he urged that the NCSK itself in its annual report
has stated that till date, no reliable ﬁgure is available with the Government
about the manual scavenging in the country and the ﬁgure is varying at
various places. He also linked the absence of institutions under the 2013
Act and Rules to the inadequacies of the Survey process by contending
that when the institutions for a Survey have not been put in place, there
is no question of a Survey being conducted in terms of the Act and Rules.
To this end, he also cited the judgment of this Court in Safai Karamchari
Andolan v. Union of India5 where this court held that the 2013 Survey
was inadequate as it was conﬁned only to 3546 statutory towns and did
not extend to rural areas. This Court also held that the States were able
to identify only a miniscule proportion of the number of people actually
engaged in manual scavenging.
14. On the aspect of sewer deaths, he brought to the attention of this
Court the deﬁnitions of ‘hazardous cleaning’ under Section 2(d) of the 2013
Act as well as the deﬁnitions of ‘sewer’ and ‘septic tank’ under Sections 2(p)
and 2(q). He stated that though the Act prohibits hazardous cleaning under
Section 7 and 9, no speciﬁc bar is made to the manual cleaning of sewers
and septic tanks as long as protective gear is given. To this end, he referred
to Rule 3(1) of the 2013 Rules and laid stress on the words “No person
shall be allowed to clean a sewer manually” to contend that the statutory
scheme recognized that entry into a sewer or a manhole can only be after
the sewage is totally emptied by machines.
15. It was argued that there is a legislative vacuum in so far as
rehabilitation for hazardous workers is concerned. The sole rehabilitation,
according to him, is by virtue of the judgment of this Court in Safai
Karamchari Andolan (supra) where this Court granted compensation of Rs.
10 lakhs to the family of a person who died in a sewer.
16. He argued that constitutionally speaking, hazardous cleaning
amounts to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution as explained

5 2014 (4) SCR197
1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

by this Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India6
(para 13-14). It was further highlighted that the Act of 2013 intends that no
person should come in direct contact with human excreta and hazardous
cleaning whereby as person is coerced to immerse himself in or be in contact
with human excreta without protective gear/safety precautions is nothing
but forced labour prohibited under Article 23. A narrow interpretation of
“forced labour”, restricting it to only those cases where there is lack of
remuneration, is contrary the intention of Article 23. This is because such
a narrow interpretation would fail to address structural discrimination and
would also render the phrase “other similar forms of forced labour” otiose.
Additionally, it was further submitted that “consent” given by the worker
to perform hazardous cleaning would not mean that labour is not forced.
Reliance placed on People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra) followed
in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan7.
17. Amicus further contended that like manual scavenging, hazardous
cleaning is also a practice borne out of ‘untouchability’ and must be
prohibited under Article 17 of the Constitution. He brought to the attention
of the Court Section 7A of the Civil Rights Act, 1955, which speciﬁcally
bars any scavenging or sweeping or any other job of a similar nature as
being an enforced disability arising out of ‘untouchability’. The Amicus
Curiae argued that if it is accepted by the Court that hazardous cleaning
is violative of Article 23, then the question of persons engaged in sewage
cleaning having practiced it on their own volition does not arise.
18. The Amicus urged that is important to note that two statutory riders
empower the executive to statutorily carve out exceptions, even though they
are couched as explanations: ﬁrst, the deﬁnition of “insanitary latrine” in
Section 2(e) states that:
“a water ﬂush latrine in a railway passenger coach, when cleaned by
an employee with the help of such devices and using such protective
gear, as the Central Government may notify in this behalf, shall not
be deemed to be an insanitary latrine.”

6 1983 (1) SCR 456
7 1983 (2) SCR 271
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1097
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Second, the explanation to the deﬁnition of “manual scavenger” in
Section 2(1)(g) speciﬁes that
“a person engaged or employed to clean excreta with the help of such
devices and using such protective gear, as the Central Government may
notify in this behalf, shall not be deemed to be a ‘manual scavenger’
19. It was submitted that these riders should be given the narrowest
possible interpretation, given that the statute punishes untouchability and
inhuman labour. It was further urged that the protective gear and devices
referred to must be of such nature that they achieve substantial or near total
mechanization of the process so that the dignity of the labourer is maintained
and no structural discrimination is perpetuated.
20. Regarding NCSK’s working, it was submitted that at present, it
has only Chairperson, Vice-chairperson and one additional member with
four member posts lying vacant. Furthermore, there was no commission
in place during FY 2022-23. In terms of Section 32 of the 2013 Act, even
state government are expected to notify a state commission with the same
powers as that of NCSK at the state level. However, State commission for
Safai Karamcharis exist in only few states.
21. The learned Amicus also pointed out that Section 29(3) of the Act,
requires the Central Monitoring Committee8 (hereafter “CMC”) to meet in
every six months. However, between 2013 to 2022, it met only seven times.
After a gap of 3 years, CMC met for the eight time after the intervention of
this court’s order dated 02.05.2023. Similarly, the Amicus ﬁled data regarding
non convening of State Monitoring Committee9 (hereafter “SMC”) for

8 According to Section 29, the Central Monitoring Committee (CMC), consisting of
the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, Chairperson of the NCSC,
Minister of State in the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Chairperson
of NCSK, Secretaries of various Ministries, etc., shall be constituted. The functions
of CMC, as delineated under Section 30, are- monitoring and advising the Central
Government and State Government for eﬀective implementation of the Act,
coordinating the functions of all concerned agencies, and looking into any other matter
incidental to or connected with implementation of the Act.
9 Section 26 of the 2013 Act provides for the constitution of a State Monitoring Committee
(SMC) in every state consisting of the Chief Minister of State or a Minister nominated
by him, the Minister-in-charge of the Scheduled Castes Welfare, representatives of the
National Commission for Scheduled Castes, and Safai Karamcharis, not less than two
1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

some states and non-constitution of District Vigilance Committee (hereafter
“DVC”) in some states as well and showed glaring inconsistencies in
constitution of SMCs from four diﬀerent sources of data.
22. Further, as per Rules of 201310 with regard to creation of State
Level Survey Committee (hereafter “SLSC”) and District Level Committee
(hereafter “DLC”) responsible for overseeing the survey process till the
“publication of ﬁnal consolidated list of the manual scavengers” in the
respective district/state, it was highlighted that only Chhattisgarh and Odisha
have constituted SLCs, with Odisha being the lone state to constitute a
DLSC. However, the Union’s aﬃdavit dated 05.07.23, claims that Karnataka,
Rajasthan, and West Bengal have also constituted Survey Committees, but
no information is provided regarding Chhattisgarh and Odisha.
23. The Amicus summed up by suggesting that the court should direct
creation of a task force under the aegis of CMC and conduct a fresh survey
by relying on inadequate data under 2013 and 2018 Survey, NCSK’s Annual
reports ﬁled for the year 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, CMC’s
meeting held on 05.07.2023 and uncertainty regarding reliable data ﬁled in
Union’s aﬃdavit. Further to set up institutions under the Act of 2013 and
Rules and take measures to identify and compensate deceased persons due
to sewer cleaning.
Submissions on behalf of intervenors
24. Ms Jayna Kothari learned senior counsel representing THAMATE,
Centre for rural empowerment, a registered society submitted that the court
to give purposive interpretation to explanation (b) of Section 2(1)(g) so
as to give wide interpretation to the deﬁnition of manual scavenger. This
interpretation would include anyone engaged in manual cleaning, whether
in sewers or septic tanks, regardless of whether they use equipment or
protective gear since the cleaning process is manual. This will ensure them
being covered as manual scavengers for rehabilitation and relief under
Section 11-16 of the Act of 2013. It was suggested that even providing some
minor protective gear such as just the gloves would exempt the coverage

members of the State Legislature belonging to the Scheduled Castes, etc. Its functions,
as under Section 27, are the same as those of the Central Monitoring Committee
10 Rule 11 read with Rule 2© and 2(j)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1099
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

of that person from the deﬁnition of manual scavenger in the existing
section. To emphasize on giving the deﬁnition a purposive interpretation,
Ms. Kothari placed reliance on Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage
Board v A. Rajappa11, wherein the Supreme court expanded the deﬁnition
of industry and on X v. Principal Secretary, Heath and Family Welfare,
Govt. of NCT Delhi12, wherein this court interpretated the provisions of
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 2021 to include single
and unmarried women.
25. Learned counsel further emphasized on the need for mechanization
and graded implementation of inclusive deﬁnition of manual scavenger.
Examples like Bandicoot13, were provided to illustrate the potential for
modern technology. It was noted that many countries have replaced the term
“manholes” with “machine holes” emphasizing the signiﬁcance of change
in language. A graded timeline was suggested to completely mechanize
the process. Counsel also submitted shortcomings in schemes like Swachh
Bharat Mission and NAMASTE as it is only limited to urban local bodies,
second it remains silent on mechanization technology deployed by the state
authorities. Lastly, some directions were also suggested such as reporting
on the surveys for the identiﬁcation of manual scavengers being done in
all districts, issuing identiﬁcation cards, compliance with rehabilitation
requirements and holding meetings of monitoring committees at the State,
district and sub-district levels. Additionally, it was proposed that data
should be segregated to specify the number of women engaged in manual
scavenging.
26. The MAANGANGGO India International, NGO/Trust based in
New Delhi, impleaded as intervenor prayed for the issuance of a writ or
appropriate measure to direct the Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog (National
Institution for Transforming India) to formulate a sustainable and time-bound
Comprehensive Policy Action Plan which should include the mandatory
adoption of modern technology to fully mechanize sewerage cleaning, with
the declaration of manual scavenging in any form as a punishable oﬀense.
It should also address the need for upgrading outdated and hazardous

11 [1978] 3 SCR 207
12 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.
13 a robot developed in 2018
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

sanitation infrastructure, promoting eco-friendly waste disposal methods,
ensuring compulsory free education for the children of manual scavengers,
particularly girls, and providing vocational training and ﬁnancial incentives
for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers, with a special focus on women
who constitute a signiﬁcant portion of those aﬀected by this practice.
Submission on behalf of Respondents
27. This court by order dated May 2, 2023, requested the Additional
Solicitor General (ASG) to propose a practical method for operationalization
of the CMC. The ASG responded to that CMC did not convene for the past
three years that these committees were conducted annually and last being
on January 8, 2020. However, subsequent meetings could not be held due
to COVID pandemic. Meanwhile, the tenure of the committee members,
including those representing civil societies, have expired during this period.14
28. Regarding the survey, the ASG emphasized that the responsibility
for conducting the survey falls under the mandate of 2013 Act. According to
the provisions of this Act, the Chief Executive Oﬃcer of the municipality or
gram panchayat is responsible for overseeing the completion of the survey.
Furthermore, in accordance with the 2013 rules, a “District Level Survey
Committee” chaired by the District Magistrate is tasked with monitoring and
supervising the survey process at the district level. It was submitted that the
2013 Act itself does not envisage a nationwide survey of manual scavengers
conducted by the central government; instead, it mandates localized surveys
to be carried out by local bodies.15 Anyhow, the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment has introduced the “Swachhata Abhiyaan” mobile app to
allow the general public to report on insanitary latrines and any associated
manual scavengers and therefore, the survey of manual scavenging is
ongoing through the use of such mobile app. However, the ministry in its
aﬃdavit has stated that the app has not received credible data and the same
has to be veriﬁed by the concerned administration.
29. It was further submitted that the government incurred an
expenditure of ₹10.48 Crore for conducting the survey in 2013 followed

14 (Union of India’s Note dt.12.05.2023 (Vol. 6)/ Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023
(Vol. 5)
15 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1101
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

by payment of compensation to identiﬁed manual scavengers to tune of
approximately ₹ 55.52 Crores. Based on survey initiated in 2013, state wise
details of about 13,881 manual scavengers were prepared.16 In addition
to this, a National Survey was conducted between 2018 and 2020 in 194
districts, which resulted in identiﬁcation of 44,217 manual scavengers and
compensation to the tune of ₹ 176.87 Crore was provided to identiﬁed
manual scavengers. The Union reported that 663 individuals have lost
their lives while cleaning sewers and septic tanks after the year 2013. Out
of these cases, compensation has been paid in 631 cases, and FIRs have
been lodged in 648 cases.
30. The Union also highlighted that, in addition to providing One-Time
Cash Assistance, it had provided capital subsidies (up to 5 lakhs) along
with concessional loans to 2,313 manual scavengers or their dependents.
Furthermore, they have enrolled 22,294 willing and eligible manual
scavengers/dependents in various skill development training programs.
Other beneﬁts provided by State/UTs were also listed. 17
31. Additionally, the Union submitted about its eﬀorts in construction
of 62.81 lakh sanitary toilets. Furthermore, it was submitted that out of 766
districts, 650 districts have reported themselves free of manual scavenging,
while reports from 116 districts regarding their status on this matter are still
pending.18
32. With regard to discrepancy in data as pointed out by Amicus, it
was submitted that the National Safai Karamchari Finance and Development
Corporation (hereafter “NSKFDC”) was the Implementing Agency for
the National Level Survey constituted under the Aegis of NITI Aayog
in consultation with State Government, Central Ministries and Civil
Society Organisations. It was submitted that the data pertaining to manual
scavengers, as conﬁrmed and veriﬁed by NSKFDC, is the only reliable data
and should be regarded as the authoritative. According to NSKFDC’s data, a
total of 58,098 manual scavengers have been identiﬁed in the country so far.

16 Also dealt in Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
17 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5) / Union of India’s Note dt.05.07.2023
(Vol. 7)
18 Volume 10, pg. 29, dated 9. 8.23.
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

The NCSK vide reply dated 12.4.2023 stated that the ﬁgures of total number
of manual scavengers identiﬁed vide National Survey 2018 conducted by
NSKFDC varies with the progress of the survey mainly due to variations
in the number of states and districts surveyed. The apparent discrepancy
in data for 24.07.2021 and 08.12.2021 is a result of ongoing identiﬁcation
and subsequent veriﬁcation processes.19
33. Furthermore, there is no inconsistency in the information provided
by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to the Parliament. On
December 1, 2021, in response to Unstarred Question No. 450 in the Rajya
Sabha, it was conveyed that a total of 58,098 manual scavengers were
identiﬁed through surveys conducted in accordance with the Act of 2013.
Subsequently, in reply to another Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question no. 1254
dated 8.12.2021; the Government reiterated the same number of identiﬁed
manual scavengers. The Government informed Parliament that there were
no reports of individuals currently engaged in manual scavenging across
the country and that there were no reported deaths attributed to manual
scavenging. However, it was clariﬁed that during the last ﬁve years, 321
individuals had lost their lives in accidents while undertaking hazardous
cleaning of sewers and septic tanks. In response to Unstarred Question
no. 3822 in the Lok Sabha dated 21.12.2021, the Government once again
stated that there were no reports of individuals currently engaged in manual
scavenging in the country. The number of manual scavengers identiﬁed
at diﬀerent times does not necessarily represent the current number of
individuals engaged in manual scavenging as many people have left the
work of manual scavenging due to various eﬀorts of Govt. and provisions
of Act of 2013.20
34. It was further argued that the identiﬁcation of manual scavengers
was primarily for the purpose of extending rehabilitation benefits in
accordance with the scheme. It should not be misconstrued to mean that
the increase in the number of identiﬁed individuals indicates a rise in active
manual scavenging activities.21

19 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
20 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
21 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1103
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

35. In response to the suggestions made by the Amicus, the Union
argued against the need to establish a Task Force under the CMC as the
government had formulated a Scheme of National Action for Mechanize
Sanitation Ecosystem (NAMASTE)22 which proposes to create three tier
working committees (working committee, state monitoring committee and
district/urban local body-level committee). These committees will meet
quarterly to oversee the implementation of NAMASTE. Therefore, it was
submitted that there is no requirement for a separate Task Force.23
36. Concerning the NCSK, the Union stated that the Chairman, Vice
Chairman, and one member have been appointed on 03.03.2023, for a term
till 31.03.2025. Nominations are under consideration to ﬁll the remaining
four vacant member positions.24
37. In response to recommendation contained in the Annual Report
of the NCSK for the year 2019-20 regarding “A National level census of
Manual Scavengers at one platform in the Country at all administrative
levels such as Country, State, District, Urban/Rural, Male/Female
etc.” as referred by Amicus curiae, the observation made by NCSK in
its annual report have been clariﬁed by the Government of India, in its
Action Taken Report, wherein it has been submitted that this “does not
seem to be feasible, as the basis of identiﬁcation of the manual scavengers
should be veriﬁcation with reference to their workplace/employer and not
merely self-declaration alone. In Census operations, such veriﬁcations
are generally not done”.25
38. The Union informed that as on date, it received information
from 34 States/Union Territories regarding the establishment of various
committees mandated by the 2013 Act and Rules except the remaining 2
States (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). In 23 states, a State Commission for

22 A joint initiative of Department of Social Justice & Empowerment and Ministry of
Housing and Urban Aﬀairs in all 4800+ Urban Local Bodies of the country, during the
next three years up to 2025-26
23 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)/ Union of India’s Note dt.05.07.2023
(Vol. 7)
24 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)/ Union of India’s Note dt.05.07.2023
(Vol. 7)
25 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

Safai Karamcharis has been established or an agency has been designated.
Additionally, 26 States/Union Territories have formed State Monitoring
Committees, 27 States/Union Territories have set up District Vigilance
Committees, and 23 States/Union Territories have constituted Sub-division
level Vigilance Committees.26 It was further submitted that except for
Karnataka and Delhi, no other State or Union Territory has reported about
prosecutions under the 2013 Act.27
39. In its aﬃdavit dated 02.05.2023, Railways has outlined measures
taken to eliminate manual scavenging. It was submitted that they have
collaborated with the Defence Research and Development Organization
(DRDO) to develop eco-friendly bio-toilets28 for passenger coaches. As of
March 31, 2023, a total of 2,99,880 bio-toilets have been installed in 84,402
coaches. Cleaning of train toilets is carried out using high-pressure jets and
speciﬁc chemicals at designated Clean Train Stations (CTS).29
40. Additionally, in response to concerns raised by the Amicus before
this Court, the Ministry of Railways has withdrawn notiﬁcations issued
dated 04.06.201430 and dated 13.10.201431 by order dated 26.04.2023.
The Railways has also released a model contract for outsourcing cleaning
services, which mandates the use of mechanized processes and safety
equipment for workers.32
41. It was submitted on behalf of NCSK that it has a limited
role, primarily focused on recommending measures in respect of Safai
Karamcharis and pursuing State Governments and Local Bodies to
implement these measures as outlined in the 2013 Act. Unlike other
Commissions, NSCK is neither a constitutional nor a statutory body. It does

26 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
27 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
28 In these bio-toilets, the waste retention tanks are ﬁtted below the coach ﬂoor underneath
the lavatories and the human waste, discharged/collected into them, is acted upon by a
colony of anaerobic bacteria that convert human waste mainly into water and bio-gases
(mainly Methane CH4 & Carbon Dioxide CO2). The gases escape into the atmosphere
and waste water is discharged after disinfection onto the track.
29 Union of India’s Note dt.09.08.2023 (Vol. 10)
30 Vide GSR 376(E)
31 Vide GSR 726(E)
32 Union of India’s Note dt.09.08.2023 (Vol. 10)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1105
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

not have the powers to summon oﬃcers of the establishments concerned
or have their oral evidence. Consequently, the commission is unable to
assert itself eﬀectively in providing relief to aggrieved Safai Karamcharis.
Additionally, the commission faces challenges due to shortage of staﬀ, with
only 16 personnel responsible for all of its functions, including internal
administration.
42. Since the lapsing of the NCSK Act, 1993 on 29.2.2004, the
commission is functioning as a non-statutory temporary body under the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Its tenure is periodically
extended through notiﬁcation, with the last extension being granted from
1.4.2022 to 31.3.202533.
43. Pursuant to this court’s order and provisions of 2013 Act, the NCSK
has taken certain steps such as circulating 20 points check list, advising
states to open appropriate budget heads and allocate funds, etc. It was further
submitted that due to continuous monitoring, in 167 cases of sewer deaths
during FY 2022-23 till 31.03.2023, compensation of ₹ 10 lakhs has been
paid. Commission also took Suo motu enquires, for instance, out of 19 cases
of sewer deaths in FY 2022-23, cognizance was taken based on newspaper
reports and paid compensation to legal heirs in 15 cases.
44. Regarding the information sought from respondents about the
abolition of dry latrines, it was submitted that states are better equipped
to provide details about the steps taken and achievements made in this
regard. Additionally, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment also
submitted that since 1993, 1,035 individuals lost their lives due to accidents
while doing hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks. In compliance
with a Supreme Court order dated 27th March 2014, compensation has been
provided to 948 families of those who died while cleaning sewers/septic
tanks. However, there have been no reported deaths resulting from manual
scavenging.
45. The Union’s aﬃdavit dated 18.04.2023, disclosed that there are
4478 permanent and 9897 outsourced Safai Karamcharis engaged by

33 Eﬀected through Notiﬁcation No. N-16/5/2021-PLAN dated 3.2.2022.
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

Cantonment Boards to upkeep general sanitation34. It was further submitted
that any dry latrines that existed before the implementation of the 2013 Act
were dismantled and converted into sanitary latrines. Furthermore, it was
highlighted that there have been no reported incidents of sewerage-related
deaths in areas managed by Cantonment Boards since the year 2013.
46. Lastly, it was proposed that this court may consider issuing
some directions to all States and Union Territories to ensure that measures
(establishment of an Emergency Response Sanitation Unit (ERSU),
designation of a Responsible Sanitation Authority, establishment of a
Helpline Number35, assurance of mechanized cleaning methods and the
availability of essential safety equipment and machines at the ERSU) are
in place in each district within six months from the promulgation of the
Court Order.36 Further, to issue appropriate directions to the States/Union
Territories to fully implement the Act, including constitution of various
committees under the Act and the implementation of the NAMASTE scheme,
in order to prevent deaths resulting from hazardous cleaning. 37
Analysis and reasoning
47. The 2013 Act not only criminalizes manual scavenging but also
provides for rehabilitation mechanisms to ensure that manual scavengers
are emancipated. Chapter IV of the Act, titled ‘Identiﬁcation of Manual
Scavengers in Urban and Rural Areas and their Rehabilitation’ spans
from Section 11 to 16 and is an entire code in so far as rehabilitation is
concerned. The ﬁrst step towards rehabilitation that the 2013 Act makes,
is the identiﬁcation of manual scavengers through a survey. This survey is
under Section 11 for municipalities and Section 14 for panchayats.
48. The methodology [and the institutions created] to conduct the
survey are provided under the 2013 Rules. The Rules provide for speciﬁc
authorities, i.e., the SLSC and DLSCs under Rule 11, to perform detailed
roles. Under Rule 11(2), the SLSCs and DLSCs must carry out campaigns
at various levels in all areas where insanitary latrines have been found. The

34 (pg. 52, Vol.3).
35 preferably 14420
36 Union of India’s Note dt.09.08.2023 (Vol. 10)
37 Union of India’s Note dt.26.07.2023 (Vol. 5)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1107
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

local authority is mandate to join hands with community leaders and NGOs
working for safai karamcharis for their identiﬁcation as per Rule 11(3).
Rule 11(4) provides for self-declaration by manual scavengers whereas
Rule 11(5) allows NGOs to submit lists of manual scavengers which may
be veriﬁed to identify them. A house-to-house survey is mandated under
Rule 11(6) to identify manual scavengers who service the insanitary latrines
in any area. Overseers are appointed under Rule 11(8) to ensure that the
data collected in the survey is correct. Subsequently, a list is made of the
manual scavengers after inviting objections and hearings. Ultimately, the
list is compiled by the DLSC. After their identiﬁcation by a survey, a ﬁnal
publication of the manual scavengers is to be published under Section 11(6).
Notably, under Section 12, a person can apply to be added to the published
list under Section 11.
49. On publication of the list, the emancipatory provision under
Section 11(7) read with Section 6(2) takes eﬀect. It declares that the
manual scavengers stand discharged from any obligation to work as
manual scavengers. This provision is the heart of the law – the declaration
frees manual scavengers from the clutches of their historically oppressive
professions. The law consequently empowers them through the process
of rehabilitation. The 2013 Act, including the aforementioned provisions,
therefore, must be interpreted as being in furtherance of fraternity, assuring
the dignity of the individual.
50. The entitlements for rehabilitation are provided under Section
13. It envisages that a manual scavengers must be provided, within one
month, a photo identity card containing the details of dependent family
members and an initial, one-time cash assistance as may be prescribed.
The Act also envisages a scholarship for the children of a manual
scavenger, allotment of a residential plot, ﬁnancial assistance for house
construction, training of the manual scavenger himself or at least one
adult member of his family, in a livelihood skill with a stipend of not
less than ₹ 3,000 during the period of the training, a concessional loan
for taking up alternative occupation, etc.
51. These rehabilitation entitlements are available only to those
included in the ﬁnal list of manual scavengers published pursuant to a survey
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

under Section 11(6) or added to the list under Section 12(3) of the Act. It
must thus be emphasized that without a survey in accordance with the Act
and Rules, there cannot be any further steps of rehabilitation.
52. That rehabilitation can occur only on identiﬁcation has not been
seriously disputed by the Union. The Union however contends that (i) the
2013 Act does not contemplate a national survey but mandates a localized
survey at the level of local bodies and (ii) two national surveys have already
been conducted in 2013 and 2018.
Interpretation of Section 11
53. The Union’s contention that Section 11 requires localized surveys
by local bodies and not a national survey is, facially, attractive. However,
the 2013 Act is not a regular statute: it is emancipatory in character and is a
manifestation of the constitutional code of upliftment. The groundbreaking
purpose of the 2013 Act, as is evident from its title38 is to ensure that manual
scavengers are rehabilitated. Rehabilitation, as found above, is a step after
identiﬁcation. Without a survey, rehabilitation is not workable. The statutory
scheme cannot be undermined through an interpretation that would leave
the implementation of the 2013 Act solely with the local bodies, without
any guidance from the Governments – State and Central. In other words, the
salutary commitment made by the 2013 Act must be fulﬁlled by the local
bodies in accordance with a policy-framework laid down by the Central or
State Government.
54. The Central and State Governments were and are, duty-bound
to lay down the parameters under which a local body was mandated to
conduct a survey. While the methodology of the Survey is provided under
the 2013 Rules, the trigger for conducting the Survey is conspicuously
absent from both the 2013 Rules as well as the 2013 Act. The absence of
a trigger cannot render the 2013 Act and its constitutional commitments
otiose by non-implementation. That is to say, the implementation of the Act
cannot be left to the whims and fancies of local bodies. Local bodies must

38 The statute is titled “the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013”.
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1109
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

be guided by the central and state governments by laying down guidelines
on when a survey must be conducted, and which local bodies must conduct
a survey. Without a policy of this nature, a local body cannot be expected
to implement the 2013 Act in a proper manner.
55. In a similar vein, this Court in Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India39,
while monitoring the implementation of the National Food Security Act,
2013, noticed that some states were not implementing the statute. This
Court noted:
“109. It is surprising that the implementation of a law enacted by
Parliament such as the NFS Act is left to the whims and fancies
of the State Governments, and it has taken more than two years
after the NFS Act came into force for Gujarat to implement it and
Uttar Pradesh has only implemented it partially. This is rather
strange. A State Government, by delaying implementation of a law
passed by Parliament and assented to by the President of India, is
eﬀectively refusing to implement it and Parliament is left a mute
spectator.Does our Constitution countenance such a situation?
Is this what “federalism” is all about? Deliberate inaction in the
implementation of a parliamentary statute by a State Government
can only lead to utter chaos or worse. One can hardly imagine what
the consequence would be if a State Government, on a similar logic,
decides that it will not implement other parliamentary statutes
meant for the beneﬁt of vulnerable sections of society. Hopefully,
someone, somewhere, sometime will realise the possible alarming
consequences.”
56. The disquieting consequences referred to in the National Food
Security Actcase (supra) have also manifested in the case of manual
scavengers – the entire statutory scheme of the 2013 Act has been challenged
as the ﬁrst step towards rehabilitation has not been taken. Our constitutional
scheme does not approve of a situation where parliamentary enactments
are rendered dead-letter by executive inaction. This argument of the Union

39 (2016) 7 SCC 498
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

must therefore be rejected to the extent that while local governments must
conduct surveys, it was for the appropriate authorities, at both the central
and state levels, to lay down parameters for the surveys to be conducted. It
was also incumbent on these authorities to ensure that proper implementation
of the 2013 Act had taken place. On both counts, the Central and State
Governments do not appear to have taken any steps.
Insuﬃciency of the previous (2013 and 2018) Surveys
57. The second submission of the Union is that two surveys were in
fact conducted in 2013 and 2018 and a continuous self-declaring survey is
taking place on a mobile application. These submissions, too, are misplaced.
It may be noticed that neither the 2013 nor the 2018 surveys could have
been conducted as prescribed under the scheme of the 2013 Rules and the
2013 Act for the reason that the institutions entrusted with duties to conduct
the Surveys were either not constituted or were not functioning. That is to
say, where the Act and Rules prescribe a particular method and manner of
survey, that method and manner only ought to have been followed and no
other method or manner could have been followed.
58. The principle of law that “where a power is given to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and
that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden” 40 would thus
apply making the 2013 and 2018 surveys inapplicable to the processes under
the 2013 Act. In fact, this very ﬁnding was arrived at by the High Court of
Karnataka in All India Council of Trade Unions v. Union of India41 where
the High Court held that if a survey had been conducted without following
the rigors of the 2013 Act and Rules, it would not be a valid survey in so
far as the Act and Rules are concerned. It was observed:
“30. Now, we ﬁrstly come to the survey and identiﬁcation of manual
scavengers in urban areas. The Manual Scavengers Act which is
brought into the force in the year 2013 virtually accepts that even in
21st century, manual scavenging exists and that also in urban areas.

40 State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 23: (1964) 4 SCR 485 at para 7.
41 (2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1111
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Even assuming that the Local Authorities have carried out survey
in terms of Section 11, it cannot be a lawful survey unless the Local
Authorities have followed the procedure under Sub-Rules (10) to
(12) of Rule 11 of the Manual Scavengers Rules by publishing a
ﬁnal list. …
33. … The State Government will have to also inform the Court whether
District wise lists are made and whether consolidated State list has
been prepared. Moreover, the State will have to place on record
whether the District Level Survey Committees have been formed
in all the Districts and the State Level Survey Committee has been
constituted. The State Government will have to point out the details
of the number of meetings held of both the Committees.”
59. A similar direction had been passed by the High Court of Bombay
in Vimla Govind Chorotiya and Others v. State of Maharashtra42 where it
was held:
“31. … (iv) Respondent No.1 i.e. State of Maharashtra in the Social
Justice and Special Assistance Department shall inform the Court on
the next date whether survey of manual scavenging in urban areas in
terms of sections 11 and 12 of the 2013 Act and similar exercise by
Panchayats in rural areas under sections 14 and 15 of the said 2013
Act have been carried out or not.”
60. This court notices that no provisional list under Section 11(4)
was prepared; no objections were called for and decided under Section
11(5) and no ﬁnal list was published under Section 11(6). In the absence of
following, the contention that there was a valid survey conducted cannot
be accepted. Yet another reason for this conclusion is that the institutions
required to conduct the survey under Rule 11 were not in place and were
not functioning at the relevant time in 2013 and 2018.
61. The Amicus Curiae had pointedly brought out the nature of data
collected by the 2013 and 2018 surveys, which appear to be inconsistent

42 (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3002)
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

and contradictory on the face of it. To this end, the table submitted by the
Amicus Curiae during arguments would itself demonstrate that the data
collected in 2013 and 2018 were not consistent:
State As per As per As per As per reply Union of NCSK’s
2013 2018 reply dt. dt.24.07.2019 India’s aﬃdavit dt.
Survey Survey 08.12.2021 to Rajya aﬃdavit dt. 01.05.2023
to Rajya Sabha 18.04.2023
Sabha Unstarred
Unstarred Question
Question
Uttar 12095 17828 32473 30375 32473 19712
Pradesh
Maharashtra 0 7298 6325 7378 0 7378

(identified
no ne in th e
2013 survey)
Uttarakhand 137 4787 4988 4924 0 in urban 6033
areas
Rajasthan 338 2590 2673 2928 No clear 2590
response
Karnataka 732 1754 2927 2486 7 4 9 3 1754
identified
from 2013
to 2020
Andhra 78 1982 1793 2060 1984 (no 1982
Pradesh mention of
any survey
year)
Bihar 137 0 131 137 No manual 0
scavengers
found in
2018, even
though 2797
sanitary
latrines
found

62. A few comments on the data are required here. A partial survey
seems to have been conducted in Karnataka in 2020 which revealed the
presence of 7493 manual scavengers. However, the 2013 survey stated that
there were only 732 manual scavengers and the 2018 survey stated that there
were 1754 manual scavengers. The exponential increase of the number
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1113
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

of manual scavengers from 2013 to 2018 and then in 2020, considerably
reduces the credibility of both the 2013 and 2018 surveys.
63. Another reason for this court’s skepticism about the survey is
the comparison of the survey of manual scavengers with the survey on
insanitary latrines. This data was provided by the cantonment boards in
pursuance of the orders of this court. The Cantonment Boards stated that
they have demolished 574 insanitary latrines in Agra, 153 in Jabalpur and
12 in Jammu. However, they stated that there were no manual scavengers
in their jurisdiction. By their very nature, insanitary latrines are serviced
by manual scavengers. The manual scavengers which were servicing these
insanitary latrines were clearly missed by the 2013 and 2018 surveys. As
stated above, the survey under Section 11 read with Rule 11(2), provides that
the SLSC and the DLSCs shall carry out adequate campaigns in all areas
especially in all such areas where insanitary latrines are found.
64. The above statistics demonstrate that the number of manual
scavengers identiﬁed in the 2013 Survey were substantially lower than
the number of manual scavengers identiﬁed in the 2018 Survey. Diﬀerent
numbers have also been stated by the Government in the Rajya Sabha on
diﬀerent dates and the Union’s Aﬃdavit before this Court. It is also unclear
and inconsistent on the number of manual scavengers identiﬁed. It is in this
context that the anguish expressed by the NCSK in its annual reports for
nearly every year since 2015-16 must be seen. In 2015-16, the stance of
the NCSK was.
“Identiﬁcation of the Manual Scavengers and their subsequent
rehabilitation is the soul of the Act. However, despite repeated
eﬀorts by the Government of India, the ﬁgures with regard to the
Manual Scavengers are not forthcoming correctly. It is observed
that diﬀerent ﬁgures are being quoted by diﬀerent Government
and Non-Governmental agencies. … the Commission recommends
that there is a need to have correct and authentic ﬁgures about the
manual scavengers in the country.”
In 2017-18, similarly:
“Identiﬁcation of the Manual Scavengers and their subsequent
rehabilitation is the soul of the Act. However, despite repeated
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

eﬀorts by the Government of India, the ﬁgures with regard to the
Manual Scavengers are not forthcoming correctly. It is observed
that diﬀerent ﬁgures are being quoted by diﬀerent Government
and Non-Governmental agencies. … the Commission recommends
that there is a need to have correct and authentic ﬁgures about the
manual scavengers in the country””
The NCSK stated in 2018-19:
“Till date, no reliable ﬁgure is available with the Government about
the manual scavenging in the country and the ﬁgure is varying at
various places.”43
Similarly, in its annual report for 2019-20, the NCSK stated:
“The data in respect of the number of Manual Scavengers is the
ﬁrst requisite for abolishing the practice of manual scavenging and
improving their quality of life. The survey at National or in all
State/UT has not been carried out for the identiﬁcation of manual
scavengers. The Government is still not sure about the number of
Male and Female Manual Scavengers as on date in the country.”
65. In fact, on 05.07.2023, the CMC met after directions given by this
Court. In the CMC, the Deputy Advisor to the NITI Aayog yet again stated
the need for a survey as, according to him, many manual scavengers were
left out of the survey. At this stage, it may be noticed that this Court in Safai
Karamchari Andolan (supra) had noticed the short-comings of the survey
of 2013 and had observed as follows:
“the Central Government announced a ‘Survey of Manual
Scavengers’. The survey, however, was conﬁned only to 3546
statutory towns and did not extend to rural areas. Even with this
limited mandate, as per the information with Petitioner No. 1,
the survey has shown remarkably little progress. State records in
the “Progress Report of Survey of Manual Scavengers and their
Dependents” dated 27.02.2014 show that they have only been able
to identify a miniscule proportion of the number of people actually

43 Annual Report of the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis for the year 2018-
19.
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1115
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

engaged in manual scavenging. For instance, the Petitioners, with
their limited resources, have managed to identify 1098 persons
in manual scavenging in the State of Bihar. The Progress Report
dated 27.02.2014 claims to have identiﬁed only 136. In the State of
Rajasthan, the Petitioners have identiﬁed 816 manual scavengers
whereas the Progress Report of the State dated 27.02.2014 has
identiﬁed only 46.
11. The aforesaid data collected by the Petitioners makes it
abundantly clear that the practice of manual scavenging continues
unabated. Dry latrines continue to exist notwithstanding the fact
that the 1993 Act was in force for nearly two decades. States have
acted in denial of the 1993 Act and the constitutional mandate to
abolish untouchability.
12. For over a decade, this Court issued various directions and
sought for compliance from all the States and Union Territories. Due
to eﬀective intervention and directions of this Court, the Government
of India brought an Act called “The Prohibition of Employment
as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013” for
abolition of this evil and for the welfare of manual scavengers. The
Act got the assent of the President on 18.09.2013. The enactment
of the aforesaid Act, in no way, neither dilutes the constitutional
mandate of Article 17 nor does it condone the inaction on the part
of Union and State Governments under the 1993 Act. What the
2013 Act does in addition is to expressly acknowledge Article 17
and Article 21 rights of the persons engaged in sewage cleaning
and cleaning tanks as well persons cleaning human excreta on
railway tracks.”
66. Hence, when this Court had already found that the survey was
insuﬃcient, the Union cannot possibly rely on the same survey once again.
III: Institutions
67. A major short-coming in the implementation of the 2013 Act is the
fact that the State and the Central Governments have not even constituted
the institutions that are required to implement the Act. A list of institutions
required to be constituted under the Act are under:
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

S. No. Institution Section/Rule
1. National Commission for Safai Section 3, National Commission
Karamcharis for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993;
Given statutory functions under
Section 31, 2013 Act.
2. State Commission for Safai Section 32, 2013 Act
Karamcharis
3. Central Monitoring Committee Section 29, Prohibition Act, 2013

4. State Monitoring Committee Section 26, Prohibition Act, 2013

5. Vigilance Committees Section 24, Prohibition Act, 2013

6. State Level Survey Committee Rule 11, Prohibition Rules, 2013

7. District Level Survey Rule 11, Prohibition Rules, 2013
Committee

68. The implementation of the statute depends on the eﬀective
functioning of the aforementioned institutions. Unfortunately, it has
been seen that these institutions have not been constituted by the States
and the Union and where they have been constituted, the institutions
are not functioning at all. The Act has created the institutions to ensure
a check and balance on the implementation of the statute. However,
instead of being a check on the implementation, the lack of institutions
has eﬀectively brought the implementation of the Act to a total stand-
still. This systematic neglect of the statute and inaction by the executive
would reduce it to a dead letter. Each of the institutions is dealt with
more speciﬁcally below-
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis
69. The NCSK is a statutory commission which was created under
the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993. Under this Act,
the Commission was to function only till 1997. However, on amendments
and executive instructions, the Commission remained functional till 2013.
Section 31 of the 2013 Act, thereafter, bestowed certain powers and functions
on the NCSK which are to be fulﬁlled by it. Therefore, though the NCSK
Act, 1993 does not envisage a longer term for the NCSK, by virtue of the
2013 Act, the NCSK must remain functional. The NCSK discharges vital
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1117
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

functions: it is to monitor the implementation of the 2013 Act; to enquire
into complaints regarding the contravention of the Act; to advise the Central
and State Governments for eﬀective implementation of the Act; and to take
suo motu notice of matter relating to non-implementation of the Act. The
non-functioning of the NCSK would therefore paralyze the implementation
of the Act.
70. It is in this light that the position of the NCSK must be seen.
The NCSK is manned only by a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson and
one member. It is further a matter of fact that the Commission was not
even functioning in the year 2022-23. Needless to state, the Commission
is short-staﬀed by executive inaction in appointing members to the
Commission.
State Commissions for Safai Karamcharis
71. In terms of the 2013 Act, at state level (by Section 31), all
states are under a mandate to constitute State Commissions for Safai
Karamcharis. The functions of the State Commission are identical to
functions of the NCSK. The State Commissions, therefore, play an
equally important role in the implementation of the Act at the State
level. Repeatedly, the NCSK had noted that State Commissions were
not constituted. In its Annual Report for the year 2019-20, the National
Commission report that persons are approaching the NCSK because of
the lack of State Commissions. It stated:
“The Commission understands that separate State Commissions for
Safai Karamcharis exist in very few States. In the absence of State
level Commissions in other States, the petitioners from far oﬀ corners
of the country are forced to take up their grievances with the National
Commission for Safai Karamcharis. This, besides being inconvenient
for the petitioners, also overburdens the National Commission. If there
is State level Safai Karamchari Commission in every State, then the
petitioners of that State can approach these State level Commissions
for redressal of their grievances and the State level Commission, in
turn, can take up the matter with the local authorities concerned in a
more eﬀective manner.”
1118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

72. The court was appraised that during the pendency of this case, the
NCSK and the Union of India submitted aﬃdavits regarding the position of
constitution of State Commissions. The Amicus Curiae points out that the
aﬃdavits reveal glaring inconsistencies in the data for constitution of the
State Commissions. The lack of precise data due to the inconsistencies means
that there is no clarity regarding the constitution of these Commissions.
Nonetheless, from the tables supplied to this Court by the Union and the
Amicus Curiae, it is clear that very few States have dedicated Commissions
for Safai Karamcharis. In fact, the data submitted by the Union of India
also shows that the Commissions which have been constituted are neither
functioning nor even meeting regularly. The implementation of the 2013 Act
is wanting for the lack of institutional support from the State Commissions
as well.
Central Monitoring Committee
73. A vital institution for the implementation of the Act is the CMC
constituted under Section 29 of the 2013 Act, under the chairmanship of
the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment. The Committee
is to have various ex oﬃcio members including Minister of State in the
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Chairperson National
Commission for Scheduled Castes, Chairperson, NCSK, Member of
Planning Commission dealing with development of Scheduled Castes, 3
MPs from SC communities, Secretaries of 7 ministries etc. The functions
of this Committee, mandated under Section 30, are equally important.
It is to monitor and advise the Central and State Government regarding
the implementation of the 2013 Act and to coordinate the functions of all
concerned agencies. The 2013 Act also empowers the Committee to look
into any other matter incidental to or connected with the implementation
of the Act. The broad and sweeping powers of the Committee demonstrate
its importance.
74. Regrettably, though the Committee is statutorily mandated to
meet once in six months under Section 29(3), it is seen that the Committee
met after a gap of three years on 05.07.2023 after a direction from this
Court on 02.05.2023. The Order passed by this Court is reproduced for
clarity:
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1119
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the
opinion that the learned A.S.G. should indicate a practical
method for the operationalization of the Central Monitoring
Committee. That Committee comprises of more than 20 members
and has apparently not met for the last three years. The record
also discloses that in the last ten years, the Committee has met
seven times. …
This Court is of the opinion that the A.S.G. should, therefore,
obtain instructions with regard to the practical method to be
undertaken by State Committees and other agencies, created by
the Act, for survey, identiﬁcation and complete operationalization
of the Act. The A.S.G. may indicate also the time lines for this
purpose.”
The CMC being a central governmental authority which coordinates
and monitors the implementation of the 2013 Act, must be proactive.
The implementation of the 2013 Act enacted duly and empowering
a downtrodden section of the society cannot be left unrealised, and
especially not due to executive inaction.
State Monitoring Committees
75. The State Monitoring Committees, like the CMCs, have a number
of ex oﬃcio members such as the Chief Minister or a Minister nominated by
him, the Minister-in-charge of the Scheduled Castes Welfare, representatives
of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Safai Karamcharis,
etc. as mandated by Section 26 of the 2013 Act. Similarly, the functions of
the State Monitoring Committee are also broad under Section 27. However,
it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the State Monitoring
Committees are inactive which is in direct contravention of the statutory
mandate under Section 26 of the 2013 Act. 44
76. The data compiled by the Union and presented by the Amicus
Curiae in tabular form evidences that the Committees either do not exist
or have not met in the recent past. There is no material on record to show
that steps have been taken at any stage to constitute the Committees and
ensure that they are working.

44 See the extracted table for easy reference
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

State NCSK Union’s NCSK’s Union of
aﬃdavit aﬃdavit India’s
Report
dt.18.04.2023 (p.44Vol.4) aﬃdavit
2019-20
(Vol.3)
(p.90,Vol.2) dt.05.07.2023
(Vol.7)
Assam No Constituted No DC: 08.08.2018
information (p.180of information LDM:
about Vol.3) about 18.07.2019
constitution constitution
(p.18ofVol.7)
of SMC of SMC
Manipur No State may No -
information decide (p. information
499 of Vol.3) about
about
constitution
constitution
of SMC
of SMC
Meghalaya No Constituted No -
information (p. 503 information
about about
of Vol. 3)
constitution constitution
of SMC of SMC
Nagaland No Under Constituted -
information process (p.
about 522 of Vol. 3)
constitution
of SMC
Chandigarh Constituted Only states Constituted Under action
that this for constitution
relates to
(p.28 of Vol.7)
the Social
Welfare
Department
(p. 846 of
Vol. 3)
Daman & Diu No Constituted Constituted DC: 24.11.2022
information on
LDM: Not
about 24.11.2022
given
constitution
of SMC (p.31 of Vol.7)
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1121
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Delhi Constituted No response Constituted -

Ladakh Constituted No -
vide G.O. information
dated provided
03.02.2022
(p. 899
of Vol. 3)
Lakshawadeep Constituted Not required Constituted -
(p. 920
of Vol.3)
Puducherry No No response No DC: 16.06.2013
information information
LDM: Not
about about
given
constitution constitution
of SMC of SMC (p.92 of Vol.7)

Vigilance Committees
77. Vigilance Committees are of two types: district and sub-
divisional. DVCs are mandated under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
and consist of the District Magistrate, MLAs of Scheduled Castes from
the district, Superintendent of Police, etc. Similarly, the Sub-divisional
Vigilance Committees are constituted under Section 24(3) and comprise
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, CEOs of Panchayats, Sub-Divisional
level Oﬃcer in charge of Scheduled Castes Welfare etc. The Committees
are mandated to meet once in three months under Section 24(4). These
committees’ functions under Section 25 are to oversee economic and
social rehabilitation, coordinate the functions of all agencies to channelize
adequate credit for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers and to monitor
the registration of oﬀences and their investigation and prosecution under
the 2013 Act.
78. Even though these grass-roots institutions were empowered under
the Act with speciﬁc functions, many of the States have not even constituted
the Committees and where the Committees have been constituted, they are
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

not functional. The Amicus Curiae submitted a table to this Court presenting
the state of aﬀairs for Vigilance Committees. This table clearly shows that
the Vigilance Committees are not functional. No further data is forthcoming
from the Union to contravene this position.
State Date of State Date of Constitution and
Constitution and
Last Date of Meeting
Last
Date of Meeting
Andaman and DC:04.01.2019 Puducherry DC:16.06.2023
Nicobar
LDM: Not given LDM: Not given
Assam DC:08.05.2014 Punjab DC: Diﬀerent dates for
diﬀerent district between
LDM: Not given
2014and 2019.
LDM: Diﬀerent dates for
diﬀerent district between
2018 and 2023.
Chandigarh Under action for Rajasthan DC:13.05.2016
constitution
LDM: No speciﬁc date
Dadra & DC:20.09.2022 Sikkim DC:27.11.2014
Nagar Haveli
LDM: Not given LDM: Diﬀerent dates for
and Daman&
diﬀerent districts in2023.
Diu
Goa DC: Not given Tripura DC:01.03.2019
LDM:06.12.2018
LDM: Not given as state is
freeofMS
Karnataka DC: Diﬀerent West DC:26.02.2014
dates for diﬀerent Bengal
LDM: 27.02.2023
district between
2014 and 2018.
LDM: Diﬀerent
dates for diﬀerent
district between
2021 and 2023.
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1123
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Survey Committees
79. Survey Committees under Rule 11 are to be created at the State
and District level. The function of the Committees is to oversee the survey
process from its initiation to the publication of the list in the respective
district/state. As per the data supplied to this Court, the State Level
Survey Committee has been constituted only in Rajasthan, Karnataka
and West Bengal as per the Union of India45. Further, District Level
Survey Committee has been constituted only by Odisha. Obviously, a
survey under the Act cannot take place without these Committees being
constituted.
IV. Hazardous Cleaning
80. Manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning are separately treated
under the 2013 Act. A ‘Manual scavenger’ is deﬁned under Section 2(g) as a:
“(g) a person engaged or employed, … by an individual or a local
authority or an agency or a contractor, for manual cleaning, carrying,
disposing of, or otherwise handling in any manner, human excreta in
an insanitary latrine or in an open drain or pit into which the human
excreta from the insanitary latrines is disposed of, or on a railway
track or in such other spaces or premises as the Central Government
or State Government may notify, before the excreta fully decomposes
in such manner as may be prescribed…”
81. A manual scavenger under the 2013 Act, therefore, is employed
with respect to cleaning human excreta from an insanitary latrine or a
similar place. On the other hand, ‘Hazardous cleaning’ is deﬁned under
Section 2(d) as:
“(d) “hazardous cleaning” by an employee, in relation to a sewer or
septic tank, means its manual cleaning by such employee without the
employer fulﬁlling his obligations to provide protective gear and other
cleaning devices and ensuring observance of safety precautions, as
may be prescribed or provided in any other law, for the time being in
force or rules made thereunder;”

45 Union of India’s aﬃdavit dated 5.7.2023.
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

‘Septic tank’ and ‘Sewer’ are in turn deﬁned under Section 2(p) and
2(q) respectively:
“(p) “septic tank” means a water-tight settling tank or chamber,
normally located underground, which is used to receive and hold
human excreta, allowing it to decompose through bacterial activity;”
“(q) “sewer” means an underground conduit or pipe for carrying oﬀ
human excreta, besides other waste matter and drainage wastes;”
82. A perusal of the deﬁnition would reveal that a person employed
for hazardous cleaning has nexus to a sewer or septic tank. The deﬁnition
of sewer and septic tank would reveal that they are concerned with human
excreta and other wastes. It must also be noticed that hazardous cleaning
is permitted if protective gear and cleaning devices are provided. These
are prescribed under the 2013 Rules. Even though both a hazardous
cleaner and a manual scavenger deal with human excreta, the statute only
penalizes hazardous cleaning and does not provide for subsequent steps for
rehabilitation of hazardous cleaners. Ms. Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate,
urged that the diﬀerence in the treatment between manual scavenging and
hazardous cleaning violates Article 14 as there is no rational diﬀerentiation
between the two. However, this court is not faced with a challenge to the
statute in this case. Without a challenge to the provisions, the diﬀerentiation
cannot be held unconstitutional.
MECHANIZATION
83. While the statutory scheme does not provide for rehabilitation of
hazardous workers, especially those who work in sewers, the constitutional
underpinnings of the 2013 Act and the prohibition of untouchability must
inure to their beneﬁt. Hazardous cleaning, like manual scavenging, is a
manifestation of untouchability, and has been abolished by the adoption of
Article 17 of the Constitution. This is also evident through the Civil Rights
Act, 1955 which speciﬁcally proscribes scavenging under Section 7A, as
being an instance of untouchability.
84. To this end, the 2013 Act and Rules provide for mechanization of
hazardous cleaning through ‘cleaning devices’ and ‘protective gear’. Rule
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1125
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

3 of the 2013 Rules beings with the words “no person shall be allowed to
clean a sewer manually with the protective gear and safety devices under
these rules except …” A scrutiny of the exceptions under the Rule reveals
that the situations are only where mechanical equipment cannot be put into
operation or when the sewer is not yet operational. In other circumstances,
speciﬁc approval of the CEO of the local authority is required where he
reasons that it is absolutely necessary to have manual sewage cleaning in
writing with valid reasons.
85. Notably, Rule 3(2) ensures that even in the exceptional situations
of removal of submersible pumps and reconstructions of the manhole, the
sewage must be totally emptied. An exhaustive list of protective gear under
Rule 4 and of cleaning devices in Rule 5 indicate the extent of mechanization
required for hazardous cleaning. The further safeguards under Rule 6, 7 and
8 make it clear that a person must not enter the sewer or septic tank except
under exceptional situations.
86. The clear purpose and intent of the 2013 Act and Rules is to ensure
the mechanization of sewer and septic tank cleaning. In other words, the
2013 Act and Rules intends that no person should have to come in direct
contact with human excreta and that protective gear and cleaning devices
must be provided to ensure this. The protective gear and cleaning devices
required to be prescribed under the Rules would also be required to be
in furtherance with this purpose. That is to say, the prescribing authority
must keep in mind that the protective gear and cleaning devices given
to a hazardous cleaner ensure that he does not come into contact with
human excreta.
87. The data submitted by the Union in its aﬃdavits reveals a
signiﬁcant lack of mechanization to clean sewer lines or septic tanks.
A few examples which had been raised by the Amicus Curiae pertain to
Chittoor, Ongole, Mangalagiri-Tadeppalli in Andhra Pradesh, Kollam
in Kerala, Gangtok in Sikkim, Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu all having no
machines at all, and the entirety of the cleaning is being undertaken by
hazardous cleaners. As held above, such a situation is against the statutory
as well as constitutional mandate. Cleaning devices as well as protective
gear must be provided to ensure that manual cleaning of sewers and septic
tanks is not done.
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

STATUS OF HAZARDOUS CLEANING UNDER ARTICLE 23
88. Article 23 of the Constitution prohibits forced labour and makes it
an oﬀence punishable in accordance with law. The expression ‘other forms
of forced labour’ in Article 23 strike at all forms of labour which oﬀend
human dignity. This would include not just remuneration but would also
include all labour where the absolute minimum standards of safe employment
are not met.
89. At the cost of repetition, given the importance of, it would not be
out of place to mention that the meaning of forced labour was discussed
by this Court in People’s Union for Democratic Rights (supra) where this
Court had expanded the scope of the words and included within its sweep
situations where basic dignity is violated by not adhering to the minimum
wage standards. The court held that employment where minimum wage is
not paid is a violation of Article 23 and an instance of forced labour.
90. Drawing from the above principles, it can be held that where
minimum protective gear and cleaning devices are not provided to hazardous
workers, the employment of hazardous workers amounts to forced labour
and is thus prohibited under the Constitution. This attains importance as the
provisions for protective gear and cleaning devices are not mere statutory
rights or rules, but are entitlements and it is due to these entitlements that
the provisions of the 2013 Act are in consonance with the Constitution.
91. Another consequence of this principle is that the defence of any
contractor or authority that a hazardous worker had entered into a sewer
or septic tank voluntarily without any protective gear or cleaning devices,
would not stand constitutional scrutiny. In People’s Union for Democratic
Rights (supra),this Court explained the reasons why the alleged consent is
irrelevant, in the context of minimum wages in the following words:
“13. … It is therefore clear that even if a person has contracted
with another to perform service and there is consideration for such
service in the shape of liquidation of debt or even remuneration he
cannot be forced, by compulsion of law or otherwise, to continue
to perform such service, as that would be forced labour within the
inhibition of Article 23. This article strikes at every form of forced
labour even if it has its origin in a contract voluntarily entered into
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1127
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

by the person obligated to provide labour or service (vide Pollock
v. Williams [322 US 4: 88 L Ed 1095]). The reason is that it oﬀends
against human dignity to compel a person to provide labour or service
to another if he does not wish to do so, even though it be in breach
of the contract entered into by him. There should be no serfdom or
involuntary servitude in a free democratic India which respects
the dignity of the individual and the worth of the human person.
Moreover, in a country like India where there is so much poverty
and unemployment and there is no equality of bargaining power,
a contract of service may appear on its face voluntary but it may,
in reality, be involuntary, because while entering into the contract,
the employee, by reason of his economically helpless condition,
may have been faced with Hobson’s choice, either to starve or to
submit to the exploitative terms dictated by the powerful employer.
It would be a travesty of justice to hold the employee in such a case
to the terms of the contract and to compel him to serve the employer
even though he may not wish to do so. That would aggravate the
inequality and injustice from which the employee even otherwise
suﬀers on account of his economically disadvantaged position
and lend the authority of law to the exploitation of the poor
helpless employee by the economically powerful employer. Article
23 therefore says that no one shall be forced to provide labour
or service against his will, even though it be under a contract of
service.””
A contract for employment of a hazardous cleaner without protective
gear and cleaning devices would, similarly, violate Article 23 even if it were
voluntary because such an agreement would violate human dignity.
Rehabilitation of Hazardous Workers
92. The liberative nature of the statute coupled with the object of Article
17 and 23 require entitlements to be given to the families of those persons
who died while working in sewers or septic tanks. This is also because the
entire family would be rendered without a bread-winner. The economic
and social status of the already downtrodden and oppressed family would
dwindle further. The dignity of the individual, guaranteed by law under
Article 21, must be ensured through rehabilitative processes.
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

93. The Court cannot be blind to such a situation. In fact, it is in
pursuance of this aim that this Court in Safai Karamchari (supra) granted
a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs to every family where a person had died in a sewer.
The Court held:
“23.2. If the practice of manual scavenging has to be brought to
a close and also to prevent future generations from the inhuman
practice of manual scavenging, rehabilitation of manual scavengers
will need to include: (a) Sewer deaths — Entering sewer lines without
safety gear should be made a crime even in emergency situations. For
each such death, compensation of Rs 10 lakhs should be given to the
family of the deceased.
23.3. Identify the families of all persons who have died in sewerage
work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award compensation
of Rs 10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending
on them.
23.4 Rehabilitation must be based on the principles of justice and
transformation.”
94. However, mere economic measures would not suﬃce in the
upliftment of the family. Rehabilitation would require elements of long-
term and short-term socio-economic measures such as scholarships, etc. To
this end, this Court ﬁnds that entitlements which are akin to those given to
manual scavengers must be granted to families of hazardous workers who
had died in sewers and septic tanks.
95. In addition to the families of the hazardous workers, endeavors
must be made to rehabilitate such persons who continue to be employed as
hazardous workers without any protective gear or cleaning devices. States
must suitably frame policies to ensure that all hazardous workers are given
access to rehabilitative entitlements.
Directions
96. In view of the above discussion, the following directions are issued:
(1) The Union should take appropriate measures and frame
policies, and issue directions, to all statutory bodies, including
corporations, railways, cantonments, as well as agencies under
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1129
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

its control, to ensure that manual sewer cleaning is completely
eradicated in a phased manner, and also issue such guidelines
and directions as are essential, that any sewer cleaning work
outsourced, or required to be discharged, by or through
contractors or agencies, do not require individuals to enter sewers,
for any purpose whatsoever;
(2) All States and Union Territories are likewise, directed to ensure
that all departments, agencies, corporations and other agencies
(by whatever name called) ensure that guidelines and directions
framed by the Union are embodied in their own guidelines and
directions; the states are speciﬁcally directed to ensure that such
directions are applicable to all municipalities, and local bodies
functioning within their territories;
(3) The Union, State and Union Territories are directed to ensure
that full rehabilitation (including employment to the next of kin,
education to the wards, and skill training) measures are taken in
respect of sewage workers, and those who die;
(4) The court hereby directs the Union and the States to ensure that
the compensation for sewer deaths is increased (given that the
previous amount ﬁxed, i.e., ₹ 10 lakhs) was made applicable
from 1993. The current equivalent of that amount is Rs. 30
lakhs. This shall be the amount to be paid, by the concerned
agency, i.e., the Union, the Union Territory or the State as the
case may be. In other words, compensation for sewer deaths
shall be ₹ 30 lakhs. In the event, dependents of any victim have
not been paid such amount, the above amount shall be payable
to them. Furthermore, this shall be the amount to be hereafter
paid, as compensation.
(5) Likewise, in the case of sewer victims suﬀering disabilities,
depending upon the severity of disabilities, compensation shall
be disbursed. However, the minimum compensation shall not be
less than ₹ 10 lakhs. If the disability is permanent, and renders
the victim economically helpless, the compensation shall not be
less than ₹ 20 lakhs.
1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

(6) The appropriate government (i.e., the Union, State or Union
Territories) shall devise a suitable mechanism to ensure
accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the
course of contractual or “outsourced” work. This accountability
shall be in the form of cancellation of contract, forthwith, and
imposition of monetary liability, aimed at deterring the practice.
(7) The Union shall device a model contract, to be used wherever
contracts are to be awarded, by it or its agencies and corporations,
in the concerned enactment, such as the Contract Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1970, or any other law, which
mandates the standards – in conformity with the 2013 Act, and
rules, are strictly followed, and in the event of any mishap, the
agency would lose its contract, and possibly blacklisting. This
model shall also be used by all States and Union Territories.
(8) The NCSK, NCSC, NCST and the Secretary, Union Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment, shall, within 3 months from
today, draw modalities for the conduct of a National Survey. The
survey shall be ideally conducted and completed in the next one
year.
(9) To ensure that the survey does not suﬀer the same fate as the
previous ones, appropriate models shall be prepared to educate
and train all concerned committees.
(10) The Union, State and Union Territories are hereby required to set
up scholarships to ensure that the dependents of sewer victims,
(who have died, or might have suﬀered disabilities) are given
meaningful education.
(11) The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) shall also be
part of the consultations, toward framing the aforesaid policies.
It shall also be involved, in co-ordination with state and district
legal services committees, for the planning and implementation
of the survey. Furthermore, the NALSA shall frame appropriate
models (in the light of its experience in relation to other models
for disbursement of compensation to victims of crime) for easy
disbursement of compensation.
DR. BALRAM SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1131
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(12) The Union, State and Union Territories are hereby directed to
ensure co-ordination with all the commissions (NCSK, NCSC,
NCST) for setting up of state level, district level committees and
commissions, in a time bound manner. Furthermore, constant
monitoring of the existence of vacancies and their ﬁlling up shall
take place.
(13) NCSK, NCSC, NCST and the Union government are required
to co-ordinate and prepare training and education modules, for
information and use by district and state level agencies, under
the 2013 Act.
(14) A portal and a dashboard, containing all relevant information,
including the information relating to sewer deaths, and
victims, and the status of compensation disbursement, as well
as rehabilitation measures taken, and existing and available
rehabilitation policies shall be developed and launched at an
early date.
Conclusion
“For ours is a battle not for wealth or for power. It is a battle for
freedom. It is the battle of reclamation of human personality.”46 Dr.
B. R. Ambedkar
97. If we are to be truly equal, in all respects the commitment that
the constitution makers gave to all sections of the society, by entrenching
emancipatory provisions, such as Articles 15 (2), 17, 23 and 24, each of
us must live up to its promise. The Union and the States are duty bound
to ensure that the practice of manual scavenging is completely eradicated.
Each of us owe it to this large segment of our population, who have
remained unseen, unheard and muted, in bondage, systematically trapped
in inhumane conditions. The conferment of entitlements and placement of
obligations upon the Union and the States, through express prohibitions in
the constitution, and provisions of the 2013 Act, mean that they are obliged
to give real meaning to them, and implement the provisions in the letter and
spirit. Upon all of us citizens lie, the duty of realizing true fraternity, which

46 Address at the All-India Depressed Classes Conference held at Nagpur in July 1942
1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.

is at the root of these injunctions. Not without reason does our Constitution
place great emphasis on the value of dignity and fraternity, for without these
two all other liberties are chimera, a promise of unreality. It is all of us who
today proudly bask in the achievements of our republic, who have to awake
and arise, so that the darkness which has been the fate of generations of our
people is dispelled, and they enjoy all those freedoms, and justice (social,
economic and political) that we take for granted.
98. Lastly, this court also expresses its gratitude to Amicus Mr. K
Parmeshwar for his valuable contribution and eﬀorts. List the matter on
01.02.2024.

Headnotes prepared by: Directions issued.
Divya Pandey