The Bombay High Court has delivered a strong judgment on the continued practice of manual scavenging in Maharashtra, striking down a state policy that sought to shift primary responsibility for compensation onto private employers. The court held that the government must first pay the families of workers who die during hazardous cleaning and may recover the amount later. In doing so, it linked the persistence of the practice to the enduring caste system and described it as work below human dignity.
The Policy That Was Struck Down
The petitions challenged a specific clause—Item 11—in two Government Resolutions issued by Maharashtra, one in December 2019 and another in April 2025. Under that clause, private individuals, housing societies and contractors who engaged workers for cleaning sewers, septic tanks or similar hazardous tasks were made directly liable for compensation if a death occurred.
Petitioners, including the trade union Shramik Janata Sangh and family members of deceased workers, argued that this arrangement allowed the State and local authorities to evade their statutory and constitutional duties. They pointed out that private establishments often hired workers through contractors without protective equipment or proper authorisation, yet the burden of securing compensation fell on already vulnerable families.
Court’s Core Findings
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande found the clause discriminatory and contrary to the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Act, the court noted, does not distinguish between workers on the basis of whether their employer is public or private. The same hazardous work attracts the same protections and the same obligations of the State.
The bench held that the policy violated the fundamental right to equality. By creating two classes of sanitation workers—those employed by the government or its undertakings and those engaged in the private sector—it treated similarly situated people differently without justification.
The court directed that the State and local authorities must immediately compensate the dependants of victims. Recovery from the private employer, society or contractor can follow later. This sequence ensures that families receive timely relief without being forced to pursue private parties through prolonged legal processes.
Directions on Identification and Payment
The High Court ordered the Maharashtra government to identify, within six months, every person who has died while engaged in “hazardous cleaning” as defined under the 2013 Act. Upon identification, the State must pay Rs 30 lakh to the dependants of each deceased worker. The amount aligns with compensation levels indicated in Supreme Court rulings on the subject.
The court further directed that rehabilitation measures for the families of sanitation workers and manual scavengers must be implemented without artificial distinctions between the two categories. The 2013 Act’s provisions on rehabilitation are to be applied fully.
Observations on Caste and Dignity
Beyond the legal technicalities, the judgment contains pointed social observations. The bench noted that while India speaks of major technological achievements, including reaching the far side of the Moon, a section of citizens continues to be forced into work that is below human dignity. Manual scavenging, the court said, remains a practice that has confined a particular community to this labour across generations, despite statutory prohibitions and repeated judicial directions.
The judges described the caste system as a social evil that continues to operate even after more than seven decades of the Constitution. They characterised the persistence of manual scavenging as a hard reality that stares the country in the face and as evidence that constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity have not been fully realised for all.
Legal and Constitutional Context
The ruling draws on the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions emphasising the State’s responsibility to eradicate manual scavenging and to compensate victims. The 2013 Act was enacted precisely to prohibit the employment of manual scavengers, rehabilitate those engaged in the practice, and impose duties on local authorities. The High Court found that the Maharashtra resolutions undercut these objectives by allowing the State to distance itself from deaths occurring on private premises.
By placing the initial duty to compensate on the State regardless of the formal employer, the court reinforced the principle that the constitutional obligation to protect life and dignity cannot be contracted away.
Implications of the Judgment
The decision has immediate practical consequences. Families of workers who died in private septic tanks or sewers can now seek compensation directly from the State without first establishing the financial capacity or willingness of private parties. Local bodies can no longer treat private-sector deaths as outside their responsibility.
At the same time, the judgment does not absolve private employers. Once the State has paid, it retains the right to recover the amount from those who illegally engaged the workers. The ruling therefore maintains accountability while prioritising the needs of bereaved families.
For the longer term, the court’s insistence on identification of all past deaths and on proper rehabilitation places an administrative burden on the State to confront the full scale of the problem rather than address cases only when they reach the courts.
A Continuing Challenge
Manual scavenging has been prohibited by law for years, yet deaths continue to occur with distressing regularity. The Bombay High Court’s judgment underscores that legal prohibitions alone are insufficient when administrative arrangements allow responsibility to be shifted and when deep-rooted social hierarchies remain unaddressed.
By linking the issue explicitly to caste and by refusing to accept a policy that treated private-sector workers as less entitled to State protection, the court has restated a basic constitutional demand: the right to live with dignity cannot depend on the identity of one’s employer or the accident of birth. The State remains the primary duty-bearer until the practice itself is eradicated.
Read more – atechsslaash.com , BestMenuHub.com
