AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL

SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT, 2013

LABOUR LAW II

SUBMITTED TO: MR. PARVEEN

(FACULTY OF LAW)

SUBMITTED BY :

ABHINAV RAJ (ROLL NO. 1182)

AISHWARYA TRIPATHI ( ROLL NO. 1188)

VIII SEMESTER

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

WINTER SESSION (JANUARY-MAY) 2018

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Reasons for Manual Scavenging ................................................................................................ 3

Risks Involved in Manual Scavenging ...................................................................................... 5

Analysis of The Prohibition Of Employment As Manual Scavengers And Their

Rehabilitation Act, 2013 ............................................................................................................ 6

Overview of the Act ............................................................................................................... 7

Definition of Manual Scavenging under the Act ................................................................... 9

Other Rehabilitative aspects of the Act ............................................................................... 10

Drawbacks of the Act........................................................................................................... 11

Indian Railways and the Safai Karamchari Andolan Case ...................................................... 13

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 21
 INTRODUCTION

Manual scavenging can be classified as one of the most dangerous type of employment that

was practiced for centuries in India. Manual scavenging is not confined to the contours of the

class of the people who are involved in such a practice is inextricably linked to the caste

system and runs to the root of such a hierarchy. In order to understand the manual

scavengers’ position in Indian society, it is important to examine the caste system. Most of

India’s population lives under the caste system, which divides people into a hierarchy that

governs the distribution of power, status, and identity in society. The caste system-which

divides people into a hierarchy of power, status, and identity in society has left the task of

cleaning human excreta to its lowest stratum.1

The caste system has created the pervasive view that Dalits are “impure” or “polluted.”2 They

are considered so inferior to other castes, and so polluting, that they are deemed

“untouchable.”3 For example, one custom prohibits Dalits from “walking public streets lest

their ‘polluting’ shadow should fall on an ‘upper-caste’ Hindu.” Another requires that Dalits

string a broom around their waists so as to sweep the ‘polluted’ dust they walked on. These

atrocities perpetrated on Dalits goes on to reinforce the notions of untouchability and

impurity, measures against which are strictly incorporated in the Constitution of India.4

Because of their so-called untouchability, most Dalits continue to involuntarily inherit jobs

1
Annie Zaidi, India's Shame, FRONTLINE, Sept. 22, 2006, available at
http://www.hindu.com/fline/f12318/stories/20060922005900400.html, Last Visited: 25
January, 2018
2
Yozo Yokota & Chin-Sung Chung, Prevention of Discrimination, U.N. Doc.
A/HRC/11/CRP.3, at 8 (2009), available at http://www.idsn.org/fileadmin/user_folder/pdf/
New_files/final_report_discrimination_on_work_and_decent.pdf.
3
Smita Narula, Equal by Law, Unequal by Caste: The “Untouchable” Condition in Critical
Race Perspective, 26 WIS. INT’L L.J. 255, 272 (2008).
4
Article 17, Constitution of India, 1950.
their caste has assigned to them-jobs that are too "filthy" for others to hold.5 Moreover, even

as outcasts, Dalits themselves are divided into sub-castes and practice untouchability against

those below. Accordingly, Dalits assign the filthiest work to the members of the lowest Dalit

subcaste: the manual scavengers. This system of "graded inequality" has forced the manual

scavengers to exist at the bottom of the bottom of India's social pyramid.6

There is a stark contradiction as to the laws that are made to prevent employment of people as

manual scavengers and the real picture. Where on hand, untouchability is said to have been

abolished and examples of daily lives indicating the presence of the same, it is necessary and

becomes all the more imperative, to bring into force enactments or legislations. Enacting laws

without proper enforcement is not enough, as manual scavenging is a deep rooted social evil

which needs active implementation of the laws that have been enacted. What has to be taken

into greater consideration is the factor of incorporating effective implementation measures

and that such measures are incorporated in the legislation itself.

5
Supra at 3
6
Id
 REASONS FOR MANUAL SCAVENGING

Manual scavengers exist throughout India,7 numbering (by the national government’s own

admission) at least 676,000.8 Others estimate that the number may actually be closer to one

million,9 or even 1.3 million.10 Among them, nearly all are women,11 who do “the filthiest”

aspects of cleaning human excreta, while their husbands and other men supervise. In a 2010

study of manual scavenging in many areas of Gujarat State, female manual scavengers were

found to be as young as thirteen and as old as seventy-five.12 They are typically illiterate,

work long hours, and live below the poverty line.13

Poverty being the mother of all Human rights violation is greatly responsible for this inhuman

practice.14 It was early recognized that the problems of poverty and sanitation had much in

common.11In fact it is miserable poverty which forces an individual to follow such inhuman

and degrading practices. The 2011 Global report Of ILO, on discrimination, explains caste

based discrimination as one of the major contributing factor of manual scavenging. It

includes limited access to certain types of jobs and wage gaps in relation to other population

groups.15 Social perception of few castes limits their employment opportunities and the

members are subjected to humiliation and discrimination in their day to day life and work.

Apart from caste and poverty, unavailability of alternate livelihood is also a factor. The

7
Supra note 1
8
Mari Marcel Thekaekara, A Lifetime in Muck, NEW INTERNATIONALIST, Aug. 2008, at
10.
9
Sachin Kumar Jain, India: The Curse of Manual Scavenging,
http://archive.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb112005/she4.asp, Last Visited: 25 January,
2018.
10
Supra note 5.
11
Ibid.
12
Navsarjan Trust Report, “Manual Scavenging in Rural Ahmedabad” (July 2010).
13
Ibid.
14
Justice Rajinder Sachhar, “Poverty as the Mother of all Human Rights Violation”,
www.pucl.org/reports/National/poverty.html
15
Equality at Work, The Continuing Challenge; Global Report under ILO Declaration on
Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
manual scavengers who take up alternative livelihoods like selling fruits face challenge since

people in their local areas who are aware of their “Identity” refuse to buy fruits from them.

This limits their options of employment, forcing generations after generations to take up

manual scavenging.

At the same time, manual scavenging exists for a more urgent, and practical, reason: the

country’s toilet crisis; India’s rural areas and even booming towns and cities, lack toilets and

adequate sewage lines and disposal systems.16 Cleaning human excreta usually takes two

forms. The first involves cleaning dry pit latrines of human waste. Those who perform this

task are forced to crawl into the latrines with nothing more than a broom and tin plate to clear

it.17 They collect the waste in a basket, carry the basket atop their heads, and bring it to a far

away location where the waste is disposed of.18 Occasionally, a manual scavenger has to

wade into areas where people have openly defecated on a stone, plate, or bucket and remove

the excreta.19 As a result, manual scavengers are needed to sweep up and carry away the piles

of excreta that are left in the open."20

The aforesaid reasons form a part of the larger gamut of the arising necessities for a formal

legislation in place to curb such practices. Before the actual Act is critiques it would be

pertinent to take note of another reason, viz. the dangers of such a practice. A true account of

the dangers of manual scavenging would help reinforce the necessity of a law to the same

effect, in place.

16
Burden of Inheritance, Wateraid (2009),
http://www.wateraid.org/documents/plugin_documents/burden_of_inheritance.pdf.
17
Ibid.
18
Ibid.
19
Phoebe Sebhatu, Manual Scavenging Continues, One World Foundation (2009).
20
Supra at 16
 RISKS INVOLVED IN MANUAL SCAVENGING

The most obvious danger of manual scavenging is that there is no proper equipment, putting

the scavengers’ health in great danger. While performing these tasks, manual scavengers are

very rarely provided safety equipment. According to a study conducted by the Tata Institute

of Social Sciences, ninety percent of all manual scavengers have not been provided proper

equipment to protect them from [feces]-borne illnesses.21

In view of the unhygienic conditions in which these workers work, the most probable adverse

outcome that results is on their health. Manhole workers may suffer from skin rashes and eye

soreness, respiratory and liver problems.22 Women face heavy menstruation, miscarriage,

severe anaemia, and irregular heartbeats.23 According to a recent national study on the plight

of manual scavengers, the majority of scavengers suffer from anaemia, diarrhoea, and

vomiting.24 Additionally, diseases such as dysentery, malaria, typhoid and tuberculosis are

common among manual scavengers.25 In addition, death caused by manual scavenging is not

an uncommon occurrence.26 Hence, we see that the problem of manual scavenging needs a

redressal not only in terms of it being in existence for a set of reasons or associated dangers,

but because of the nature of the activity in question. Such an activity is antithetical to human

dignity and existence and can be condemned for this very reason too. However, this paper

seeks to make a critique on the new Act dealing with this subject and the lacunae that exist in

the current Act.

21
Supra note 14.
22
Daniel Pepper, Life at the Bottom in a Caste-Ridden Country; Discrimination Keeps
“Untouchables” Cleaning Sewers with No Access to Available Safety Gear, The Globe And
Mail (Canada), Jan. 29, 2008, at A3.
23
Supra note 14.
24
Supra note 4.
25
Rhys Blakely, India’s Dirty Secret is Flushed Out at Last, TIMES (U.K.), Jan. 20, 2010,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6995142.ece.
26
India: Two Manual Scavengers Killed While Working Without Any Equipment in Gujarat,
Asian Human Rights Commission (June 24, 2008), available at http://www.
ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2008/2910.
 ANALYSIS OF THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR

REHABILITATION ACT, 2013

The Supreme Court’s unyielding criticism of the government for not eradicating the practice

of manual scavenging was the springboard for the Ministry of Social Justice and

Empowerment to introduce the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their

Rehabilitation Act, 2012 in the Lok Sabha on September 3. Such a Act was welcomed as a

panacea for the historically iniquitous, caste-ordained practice of manually handling human

waste. The Act came to be passed as The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers

and Their Rehabilitation Act on 18th September, 2013. For comparative reasons, it becomes

necessary to first analyze The Employment Of Manual Scavengers And Construction Of Dry

Latrines (Prohibition) 1993 Act that was in force.

The Employment Of Manual Scavengers And Construction Of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act

was enacted in 1993. However, the condition under this Act was that the States had to

formally adopt and enforce, thereby the lack of centrality. Such a tedious process was bound

to take a long time which amounted to two years. A few States even remained silent on the

matter, notwithstanding the Public Interest Litigation petitions filed on this issue. The PIL

litigants sought to enforce their fundamental right against untouchability under Article 17 of

the Constitution, read together with Articles 14, 19 and 21 that guarantee equality, freedom,

and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.27

The Act’s legislation under Entry 6 (public health and sanitation) of the State List in the

Constitution of India was the major lacuna in the 1993 Act.

The new Act was legislated under Entry-24 (welfare of labour and working conditions) of the

27
Vrinda Sharma, An Endless Fight Against Manual Scavenging, HINDU, May 23, 2010,
http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/23/storics/2010052355790900.htm.
Concurrent List and furthered the scope of the legislation by:

i. giving a somewhat broadened definition of a manual scavenger;

ii. its clause on the prohibition of hazardous cleaning of sewer and septic tanks; and

iii. clauses on severe penalties and rehabilitation

OVERVIEW OF THE ACT

The short title of the Act reads as, “to provide for the prohibition of employment as manual

scavengers and rehabilitation of their families and for matters connected therewith or

incidental thereto.” Hence, the main objective of the Act is to put a blanket prohibition on the

inhumane practice of manual scavenging and also go beyond such a prohibition to provide for

rehabilitation of not only the persons who engage in such a practice but also of their families.

Such a provision in law is in keeping with the belief that a mere provision of law serves no

purpose unless it is coupled with an implementation mechanism.

The provisions of the Act can be summarized in the following manner –

1. The Act prohibits any person, local authority or agency to construct an insanitary

latrine or engage a person for manual scavenging. Every occupier of insanitary latrine

shall either demolish or convert such latrine into a sanitary latrine at his own cost.

2. Every local authority (municipality, Panchayat, a cantonment board or railway

authority) has to carry out a survey of insanitary latrines existing within its

jurisdiction. The authorities have to publish a list of such latrines within two months

of the law coming into force and give a notice to the occupiers to either demolish

them or convert them to sanitary latrines within six months.

3. If there is reason to believe there are manual scavengers in a municipality or a

Panchayat, the Chief Executive Officer of such municipality or Panchayat shall

 conduct a survey to determine the number. All persons listed shall not be obliged to

work as manual scavengers and shall be rehabilitated in the specified manner. This

includes a onetime cash assistance, residential plot and training.

4. The Act makes it mandatory for municipalities, cantonment boards and railway

authorities to construct adequate number of sanitary community latrines within three

years of this Act coming into force.

5. The local authority is responsible for ensuring that no insanitary latrine is built or used

nine months after this Act is in force. The District Magistrate has to ensure that no

person within his jurisdiction is engaged as a manual scavenger, constructs an

insanitary latrine, and manual scavengers are rehabilitated.

6. Every local authority or agency is prohibited from employing a person for hazardous

cleaning (manual cleaning without protective gear and other safety precautions) of a

sewer or a septic tank. This provision is applicable within a year of the Act coming

into force. The penalty for violation is imprisonment for up to two years or a fine up

to Rs 2 lakh or both.

7. The appropriate government may appoint Inspectors for certain areas to examine

premises for latrines; examine any person if he believes he is employed as a manual

scavenger and seize records that he considers relevant.

8. The central government shall constitute a Central Monitoring Committee and every

state government a State Monitoring Committee. These Committees shall advise the

appropriate government and local authorities on effective implementation of the law.

9. Every state government shall constitute a Vigilance Commission for each district. The

Commission shall advise the District Magistrate on the implementation of the law,

oversee rehabilitation and monitor the registration, investigation and prosecution of

offences.
 10. The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (a statutory body) shall monitor the

implementation of this Act, inquire into complaints of contravention of the Act and

advice the central and state government on effective implementation of the Act.

DEFINITION OF MANUAL SCAVENGING UNDER THE ACT

The relevance of the provisions of an Act or a act or any legislation is dependent on how

broad or narrow the definitions set by it are. This is primarily because the provisions of

legislation find effect and relevance in the practical and social sphere depending upon how

inclusive the definitions have been framed to be, or have been restricted, depending on the

existing circumstances around the legislation.

Since the primary objective of the Act, in the present case, is to prohibit the employment of

manual scavengers, it is important to look at what the Act defines this term as. According to

the Act –

“(g) “manual scavenger” means a person engaged or employed, at the

commencement of this Act or at any time thereafter, by an individual or a local

authority or an agency or a contractor, for manually 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 latrine is disposed of, or on a railway track or in such other

spaces or premises, as the Central or a State Government may notify, before the

excreta fully decomposes, and the expression “manual scavenging” shall be

construed accordingly.”28

A definition of the term ‘manual scavenger’ is advantageous the extent of the identification of

28
Section 2(g), The Prohibition Of Employment As Manual Scavengers And Their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
the people who are employed as one. However, defining any term has its own advantages and

disadvantages. It can range from being very broad to being too restricted. However, the term

‘manual scavenger’ in the present Act has been defined broadly to include in whatever terms

possible persons engaged in such a practice. Moreover, this Act has been particularly praised

for such a broad definition.29 Hence, the broad definition of the term ‘manual scavenger’ is

definitely a welcome addition.

OTHER REHABILITATIVE ASPECTS OF THE ACT

In addition to training them as caretakers of public parks/gardens, plumbers or electrical

repair workers, the Act directs the Ministry of Railways to set aside a quota to absorb ex-

scavengers as railway catering staff. It also duty binds the Central and State governments to

provide proper housing with adequate sanitation, road infrastructure and, most importantly,

quality schools up to Class XII for the children of all SC communities from which manual

scavengers are drawn. A remarkably detailed rehabilitation plan in the Act is motivated by a

three-fold realisation:

i. to restore the dignity of life to the entire community of sanitation workers;

ii. to secure, through educational opportunities, better vocations for future

generations traditionally vulnerable to being recruited as manual scavengers; and

iii. to clearly spell out the tasks of every Ministry, PSU, and private sector

organisation in order to make them enforceable.

A truly laudable provision in the new Act is its unsparing penalty for offence (both

cognizable and non-bailable). It imposes an initial fine of Rs. 50,000 or imprisonment up to

one year or both. Although, it is worth noting that no offender has been prosecuted in the last

29
Agrima Bhasin, Washing off this stain will need more, The Hindu,
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/washing-off-this-stain-will-need-
more/article3958626.ece
two decades under the 1993 Act. A stringent penalty clause then ought to entail retrospective

punishment for offences committed and not exempt public servants from prosecution. For

purposeful enforcement, a body like the National Monitoring and Enforcement Authority,

proposed in the 2011 Draft, should be instituted. Besides eminent social workers, including

Scheduled Caste persons, this body should also provide representation to the invisible

workforce of devoted individuals (members of the SKA, Garima Abhiyan and similar

organisations) whose unwavering struggle in fighting for the rights of manual scavengers

remains unrecognised.

DRAWBACKS OF THE ACT

One of the drawbacks of the Act is that of dilution of clauses. The new Act dilutes the

significance of the clause that prohibits the employment of persons for hazardous cleaning of

sewer and septic tanks. It selectively mandates that a person handling excreta with the help of

‘protective gear’ shall not be deemed a manual scavenger. This is problematic insofar as such

‘protective gear’ becomes a mediating technology that helps sustain, if not perpetuate, the

employment of persons for hazardous cleaning. It contradicts the very intention in the

statement of object which talks of rehabilitating these workers out of such dehumanising

squalor.

For specific Scheduled Caste (SC) communities that are forced to render manual scavenging

labour, it is the burden of caste — worsened by casteist mindsets of those who forcefully

employ them and aggravated on account of economic necessity and unavailability of

alternative jobs. Therefore, the liberation of manual scavengers cannot be conceptualised in

isolation (lest they lose their only source of income), without a meticulous roadmap for
meaningful rehabilitation. Lack of clarity in the provisions is also being cited as one of the

major drawbacks of the present legislation.30

30
Jitendra Choube, “Manual Scavenging Act: How effective?”
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/manual-scavenging-prohibition-act-how-effective
 INDIAN RAILWAYS AND THE SAFAI KARAMCHARI ANDOLAN CASE

The biggest violator of the statute happens to be none other than Indian Railways. According

to the official statistics, there are about 340,000 people who work as manual scavengers in

India with 172,000 open discharge toilets which are maintained by manual scavenging for the

Railways.31 Although, penal provisions exist for imposition of fine and a prison term, and

considering that the 9 month period given by the Act to convert all non-flush toilets into flush

toilets is also over, there seems to be no initiative from the side of the Ministry to get things

in order. This supports the notion that just like its predecessor this Act also happens to lack

teeth and clarity.

With regard to this issue a Writ Petition was filed before the Supreme Court in 2003 which

was finally decided in 2014. In Safai Karamchari Andolan v Union of India32, a PIL was filed

for strict enforcement of the 1993 Act33 and of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles

14, 17, 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India. The surveys conducted by some of the

petitioner organizations estimate that there are over 12 lakh manual scavengers undertaking

the degrading human practice in the country, the official statistics issued by the Ministry of

Social Justice and Empowerment for the year 2002-2003 puts the figure of identified manual

scavengers at 6,76,009. Of these, over 95% are Dalits (persons belonging to the scheduled

castes), who are compelled to undertake this denigrating task under the garb of “traditional

occupation”. In 2003, a report was submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG)

which evaluated the ‘National Scheme for Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers and

their Dependents’. The conclusion of the report was that this Scheme “has failed to achieve

its objectives even after 10 years of implementation involving investment of more than Rs.

31
Agrima Bhasin, The Railways in Denial, http://infochangeindia.org/human-rights/struggle-
for-human-dignity/the-railways-in-denial.html
32
2014 (3) AWC 2835 (SC)
33
The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993
600 crores”. It further pointed out that although funds were available for implementation of

the Scheme, much of it were unspent or underutilized. The Committees set up for monitoring

the Scheme were non-functional. It further noted that there was “lack of correspondence

between ‘liberation’ and ‘rehabilitation’ and that “there was no evidence to suggest if those

liberated were in fact rehabilitated”. These were some of the surprising facts presented before

the Court. It is worth noting that apart from the provisions of the Constitution, there are

various international conventions and covenants to which India is a party, which prescribe the

inhuman practice of manual scavenging, these are the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights (UDHR), Convention on Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the

Convention for Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Due to mounting pressure of the Court the Central Government announced “Survey of

Manual Scavengers.” 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 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.

Clear lack of seriousness on the part of the Government can be seen by the contrast in the

figures presented by the Petitioners and the Government Authorities.

The Supreme Court goes on to discuss the Act in great detail, highlighting all the mechanisms

put in place by the 2013 legislation for absolving the evil of manual scavenging. Finally, the

Supreme Court states that it does not need to do any further monitoring on the issue as it has

passed countless orders against the Government for compliance with the provisions of the

2013 Act and that the final duty is cast on the States and the Union Territories to follow and
implement the same effectively. The Supreme Court showed little enthusiasm to effectively

end state backed perpetuation of the practice of untouchability. Shifting the responsibility on

the shoulders of the Government has shown no improvement since the time of the 1993

legislation, and today, when more than a year since the 2013 Act has been enacted no serious

consequence has befallen on the Railways to end the practice and the fundamental rights of

such workers continue to be sacrificed.34 The Ministry of Railways’ consistent denial of

manual scavenging and the petitioners’ unwavering resolve to restore dignity to the safai

karamcharis remain determinedly unchanged.

34
Supra note 31
 CONCLUSION

Different from most other legislations, the Act achieves a tone of unparalleled sensitivity that

is a necessary prerequisite for any legislation seeking to remedy historical exploitation rooted

in caste. Such sensitivity in the Act conveys neither pity nor empathy, but a profound apology

for the humiliation faced by manual scavengers on account of our indifference and the ill-

implementation of the 1993 Act by the past and present governments.

The Act demonstrates sincerity and thoughtful intent in proposing time-bound, universal

rehabilitation for manual scavengers. Inter alia, it obliges previous employers to extend

monthly pension to manual scavengers in recognition of the long years of service rendered to

society under adverse conditions; and assist in securing alternative employment for such

pensioned elderly manual scavengers who are unwilling to be idle. It further recommends

rehabilitation (unconnected with sanitation work) as service providers and cooks for

anganwadis and mid-day meal schemes or as railway staff assisting the elderly, the disabled

or children. The new Act was rightly placed in the care of the Union Minister of Social

Justice and Empowerment with the intention of privileging not sanitation for public but

justice, equality and dignity for the sanitation worker.

Any step taken in the alleviation of the condition of manual scavengers, what needs to be

taken note of is that manual scavengers confront historical, and deeply rooted, caste-based

discrimination—so much so that they seemingly have no choice but to spend their lives

cleaning the human excreta deposited in dry latrines, streets, and sewers.35 Their so-called

pollution, both as Dalits and as manual scavengers, has spurred on a cycle of oppression: they

35
Supra note 4.
are marked, at birth, to do something only assigned to them.36 Breaking free from that cycle

is nearly impossible, particularly when laws banning the practice are flagrantly ignored. 37

In an era of increased judicial activism and the age of PILs, one cannot ignore the role of

courts in such an effort to ward of the evil of manual scavenging from India. However, the

Court must go beyond simply relying on States to act. Therefore, the Court must use its

power of PIL to go further, and to create a system whereby society is mobilized to attack

manual scavenging at its foundation.

However, one cannot ignore the fears expressed by activists who point out the lacunae

present in the legislation, the biggest one being- lack of clarity. For example, the Act provides

land allocation as a rehabilitation method, but it is not specified if such piece of land shall be

provided in the village of the worker, or outside. Vague provisions, lack of mechanisms of

implementation, the clear lack of will on the part of the Government Authorities38 and the

lukewarm reaction of the Supreme Court signal only one thing that, it will take a very long

time to end this evil practice, and though passing of the new Act replacing the old one is a

step ahead, it is but one of the many steps required to be taken before the objectives enshrined

in the Act materialize. Only such an approach and an effort in this direction can help truly

eradicate the evil of manual scavenging or as Mahatma Gandhi called it, “India’s shame”.

36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Jitendra Choube, “Manual Scavenging Act: How effective?”
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/manual-scavenging-prohibition-act-how-effective
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Articles Referred

 Annie Zaidi, India’s Shame, FRONTLINE, Sept. 22, 2006

 Annie Zaidi, System Has Become More Pervasive, FRONTLINE, Sept. 22, 2006

 Creating a Future for the ‘Untouchable’ Scavengers of India, ACTIONAID,

available at www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/INDIA.pdf.

 Daniel Pepper, Life at the Bottom in a Caste-Ridden Country; Discrimination Keeps

“Untouchables” Cleaning Sewers with No Access to Available Safety Gear, THE

GLOBE AND MAIL (CANADA), Jan. 29, 2008, at A3.

 India: Two Manual Scavengers Killed While Working Without Any Equipment in

Gujarat, ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION (June 24, 2008)

 Jason Gale, India Failing to Control Open Defecation Blunts Nation’s Growth,

BLOOMBERG (Mar. 3, 2009)

 Mari Marcel Thekaekara, A Lifetime in Muck, NEW INTERNATIONALIST, Aug.

2008, at 10.

 Rhys Blakely, India’s Dirty Secret is Flushed Out at Last, TIMES (U.K.), Jan. 20,

2010,

 Sachin Kumar Jain, India: The Curse of Manual Scavenging, WOMEN’S FEATURE

SERVICE (Jan. 31, 2005)

 Smita Narula, Equal by Law, Unequal by Caste: The “Untouchable” Condition in

Critical Race Perspective, 26 WIS. INT’L L.J. 255, 272 (2008).

 Yozo Yokota & Chin-Sung Chung, Prevention of Discrimination, U.N.

Doc.A/HRC/11/CRP.3, at 8 (2009),
 http://www.idsn.org/fileadmin/user_folder/pdf/New_files/final_report_discrimination

_on_work_and_decent.pdf

2. Internet Sources

 Jitendra Choube, “Manual Scavenging Act: How effective?”

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/manual-scavenging-prohibition-act-how-

effective

 Agrima Bhasin, The Railways in Denial, http://infochangeindia.org/human-

rights/struggle-for-human-dignity/the-railways-in-denial.html

 Agrima Bhasin, Washing off this stain will need more, The Hindu,

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/washing-off-this-stain-will-need-

more/article3958626.ece

 Vrinda Sharma, An Endless Fight Against Manual Scavenging, HINDU, May 23,

2010, http://www.hindu.com/2010/05/23/storics/2010052355790900.htm.