Manual Scavenging

In the Union Budget finance minister stated that all cities and towns would switch to 100 per cent mechanical de-sludging of septic tanks and sewers, putting an end to manual scavenging.

• According to Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment at least 308 individuals have died while cleaning sewers and septic tanks in the past five years (2018-2022), of which 52 are from Tamil Nadu, 46 from Uttar Pradesh, 40 from Haryana, 38 from Maharashtra, and 33 from Delhi.
• Only 508 out of 766 districts have declared themselves manual-scavenging free.
• As per 2011 Census of India, there were over 740,000 households in the country where manual scavenging was still being practiced.

Manual scavenging refers to the practice of manually cleaning, handling, and disposing of human excreta and other waste materials from dry latrines, open drains, and sewers. It has been banned in India since 1993.

 

Reasons for persistence of Manual Scavenging

• This practice is often associated with the caste system in India, where people from lower castes, such as Dalits, are forced to engage in manual scavenging.
• In India, most municipalities do not have the latest machines for cleaning the sewage systems and thus sewage workers are required to enter the underground sewerage lines through manholes.
• Most of the provisions for the rehabilitation under the scheme were not gender sensitive and directed towards men, although around 95-98% of the individuals involved in manual scavenging are women.
• According to SRMS Survey, around 60% of those involved in manual scavenging are in rural areas (larger villages and settlements). However, the focus of government is on urban areas.
• Many manual scavengers are trapped in a cycle of poverty and exclusion, lacking access to education and skill development programs that could provide them with alternative livelihood options.
• There is a lack of awareness among people about the health hazards associated with manual scavenging, which has resulted in people continuing to engage in this practice.

 

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14: Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 17: Abolition of untouchability and prohibition of its practice in any form.
• Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
• Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour.

 

Legal Provisions

• Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
  • Superseding the 1993 Act, the 2013 Act goes beyond prohibitions on dry latrines, and outlaws all manual excrement cleaning of insanitary latrines, open drains, or pits.
• The Building and Maintenance of Insanitary Latrines Act of 2013
  • It outlaws construction or maintenance of unsanitary toilets, and the hiring of anybody for their manual scavenging, as well as of hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks
• Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989

 

SC judgement

• In 2014, a Supreme Court order made it mandatory for the government to identify all those who died in sewage work since 1993 and provide Rs. 10 lakh each as compensation to their families.

NAMASTE Scheme

• It was launched in 2022 as a Central Sector Scheme.
• The scheme is being undertaken jointly by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment (MoSJE) and aims to eradicate unsafe sewer and septic tank cleaning practices.

Other Schemes

• • Safaimitra Suraksha Challenge
  • Swachhta Abhiyan App
  • Rashtriya Garima Abhiyan
  • National Commission for Safai Karamchari

 

---

 

Article 299 of the Indian Constitution

Article 298 and 299

• Article 298 grants the Centre and the state governments the power to carry on trade or business, acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and make contracts for any purpose, while Article 299 delineates the manner in which these contracts will be concluded.
• Article 299 of the Constitution provides that “all contracts made in the exercise of the executive power of the Union or of a State shall be expressed to be made by the President or by the Governor of the State” and that all such contracts and “assurances of property made in the exercise of that power shall be executed” on behalf of the President or the Governor by persons in a manner as directed and authorised by them.
• Articles 298 and 299 came after the Constitution came into effect and the government entered into contracts even in the pre-independence era. According to the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947, the Crown could not be sued in court for a contract it entered into.

 

The Supreme Court has held that the government, when entering into a contract under the President’s name, cannot claim immunity from the legal provisions of that contract under Article 299 of the Constitution. Court further stated that Article 299 only lays down the formality that is necessary to bind the government with contractual liability and not “the substantial law relating to the contractual liability of the Government”, which is to be found in the general laws of the land.

 

There are 3 conditions for raising a binding contract against the government –

1. the contract must be expressed to be made by the Governor or the Governor-General;
2. it must be executed in writing, and
3. the execution should be by such persons and in such manner as the Governor or the Governor-General might direct or authorise.

Mrs. Aliakutty Paul vs The State of Kerala and Ors (1995):

• A tender of the contract for construction of a bridge was accepted by the Executive Engineer, but he did not sign it in the name of the Governor, it cannot be said that there is a valid contract in conformity with Article 299 of the Constitution.
• The decision explains the rationale and scope of Article 299 of the Constitution and emphasizes that its provisions are enacted for safeguarding the government against unauthorized contracts.