SC to Civic Bodies: Explain How Manual Scavenging Deaths Persist Despite Ban in Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad

The Supreme Court of India has expressed dissatisfaction over the affidavits submitted by authorities in Delhi, Kolkata, and Hyderabad, questioning how deaths due to manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning have occurred despite claims that the practice has been eradicated in these cities. The Court has now summoned officials to provide explanations and clarify their stance.

Supreme Court's Observations

• A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar had earlier, on January 29, issued directions banning manual scavenging and sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities: Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad.
• The Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), and Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) failed to explain how and when the practice was eliminated in their respective jurisdictions.
• The Court has now sought the physical presence of officials from Bengaluru, Kolkata, Delhi, and Hyderabad in the next hearing.
• Additionally, the Court has demanded an explanation as to why criminal prosecution should not be initiated against officials or contractors responsible for employing manual scavengers or under whose watch deaths have occurred.

Mumbai & Chennai Affidavits Considered Satisfactory

• When the case was heard on February 19, the Supreme Court noted that the affidavits filed by Mumbai and Chennai authorities were satisfactory.
• However, both cities were directed to submit detailed affidavits specifying what machines and equipment have been deployed to replace manual scavenging and sewer cleaning.
• Authorities must also provide the exact date when the practice was officially stopped.

Bengaluru's Non-Compliance

• The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) failed to submit any affidavit.
• Consequently, the Court ordered the Commissioner of BBMP to be personally present in the next hearing to explain the status of manual scavenging in the city.

Kolkata: Affidavit Contradicted by Recent Deaths

• The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) claimed that manual scavenging had been eradicated. However, the Court noted that three deaths had occurred on February 2 due to manual sewer cleaning.
• Finding the affidavit misleading, the Court summoned KMC Commissioner Dhaval Jain to appear in person.
• Advocate Kunal Chatterji, representing KMC, argued that these deaths occurred outside KMC’s jurisdiction, under the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).
• However, Senior Advocate Nandini Sen Mukherjee, appearing for KMDA, stated that KMDA had not assigned any manual sewer cleaning work.
• Given these conflicting claims, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of West Bengal to clarify which authority is responsible for manual scavenging and sewer cleaning in Kolkata and its peripheral areas, including KMDA’s jurisdiction.

Delhi: Evasive Response Raises Questions

• The Court found that Delhi's affidavit attempted to evade the real issue, merely stating that manual scavenging is prohibited without explaining how seven deaths occurred in the past year.
• Dissatisfied with the response, the Court summoned Pankaj Kumar Atray, Director (S&DM), Delhi Jal Board, to personally appear at the next hearing.

Hyderabad: Lack of Explanation for Deaths

• The affidavit filed by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water & Sewerage Board (HMWSSB) did not clarify when manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning were officially stopped.
• Further, it failed to explain why three deaths had occurred in the past year due to manual sewer cleaning.
• The Court has now summoned K. Ashok Reddy, Managing Director of HMWSSB, to explain these lapses in the next hearing.

Next Hearing & Court’s Directions

• The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on March 20, 2025.
• The Court has reiterated that it will not tolerate non-compliance with its directions banning manual scavenging.
• Authorities must clarify under whose orders these illegal practices are continuing and why no action has been taken against officials or contractors responsible for these deaths.

Case Title: Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 324/2020

Attachment: