Dr. Balram Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. (2023)

Case Summary: Dr. Balram Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. (2023)

Case Stats

All Citations of the Case

Primary: (2023) 10 SC CK 0062.

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369398-dr-balram-singh-vs-union?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=

Facts of the Case

Public interest petition under Article 32 seeking effective implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (2013 Act), alleging continued prevalence of manual scavenging and hazardous sewer/septic tank cleaning, and non‑functional statutory institutions (Central/State Monitoring Committees, District Vigilance Committees, survey committees).

Law Points Raised / Issues

• Scope of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, 23 and 24 in eradicating manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning.

• Whether hazardous manual cleaning of sewers/septic tanks amounts to ‘forced labour’ under Article 23 and is rooted in the prohibition of ‘untouchability’ under Article 17.

• Validity/limits of exceptions created via protective gear/device explanations in Sections 2(e) and 2(1)(g) of the 2013 Act.

• Adequacy and legality of surveys (2013/2018) and the need for fresh, statutory-compliant identification and rehabilitation.

• Accountability of Railways/Cantonment Boards and municipalities; full mechanisation of cleaning; compensation and rehabilitation framework.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred

Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15, 15(2), 17, 21, 23, 24, 32.
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013: Sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(1)(g) (and explanation), 2(p), 2(q), 6(2), 7, 9, 11, 11(4)-(7), 12, 12(3), 14–16, 24(3)-(4), 25–27, 29, 29(3), 30, 32.
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Section 7A.
(Background) Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993.

Judgments Referred

• Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 224 — rehabilitation & ₹10 lakh compensation for sewer deaths; directions for mechanisation.

• People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, 1983 (1) SCR 456; Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 (2) SCR 271 — scope of ‘forced labour’ under Article 23.

• Vimla Govind Chorotiya v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3002; AICCTU v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2420 — surveys under the 2013 Act.

• Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, [1978] 3 SCR 207; X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321 — purposive interpretation (cited for approach).

Obiter Dicta (Notable Observations)

• The Court characterises Articles 15, 17, 23 and 24 as an ‘emancipatory code’ tied to fraternity, demanding dignity‑centred interpretation and horizontal application in appropriate contexts.

• Protective‑gear exceptions in Sections 2(e) and 2(1)(g) of the 2013 Act must receive the narrowest construction; any permissible ‘manual’ intervention must approach near‑total mechanisation.

Ratio Decidendi

• The State’s constitutional obligation to eradicate manual scavenging/hazardous cleaning flows from Articles 14, 17, 21, 23 and 24; the 2013 Act operationalises this mandate. Surveys, functional institutions (CMC/SMC/DVC/SLSC/DLC), and rehabilitation are indispensable to realise the right to dignity and emancipation.

• Hazardous manual entry into sewers/septic tanks is incompatible with the constitutional scheme; mechanisation is the norm. Compensation and rehabilitation for affected families/workers are mandatory.

Final Ruling / Directions (Concise)

• Union and States to file compliance: status of 2013 Act implementation; abolition of dry latrines; Railways/Cantonment Boards status; mechanisation details; and real‑time tracking of sewer deaths.

• Operationalise Central/State/District monitoring and survey committees; convene CMC every six months; constitute SLSC/DLC and conduct fresh, Act‑compliant surveys where lacking.

• Ensure full mechanisation of sewer/septic tank cleaning; prohibit manual entry except as per statutory safety regime aimed at near‑total mechanisation.

• Identify all sewer/septic‑tank deaths since 1993 and compensate families; rehabilitation measures per Chapter IV of the 2013 Act (as reinforced in Safai Karamchari Andolan).

Relevant Paragraph / Reference Pointers

• Prior directions in Safai Karamchari Andolan — ‘para 23’ directions summarised (rehabilitation; ₹10 lakh compensation; mechanisation).

• Court orders dated 22 Feb 2023 & 2 May 2023 calling for affidavits/compliance and operationalisation of committees (CMC/SMC/DVC).

• Definitions & prohibitions under 2013 Act: Sections 2(d), 2(e), 2(1)(g) (Explanation), 7, 9; Rules 3(1), 11 etc.

• Railways notifications (4 June 2014; 13 Oct 2014) noted and required to be addressed by affidavit.

One Paragraph Summary (Bottom)

The Supreme Court, speaking through Bhat, J., re‑centres the constitutional promise of dignity and fraternity to eradicate the caste‑linked practice of manual scavenging and hazardous sewer work. Recognising Articles 14/17/21/23/24 as an emancipatory code, the Court reinforces the 2013 Act’s architecture—surveys, monitoring bodies, mechanisation, compensation and rehabilitation—while demanding concrete, time‑bound compliance from the Union, States, Railways and civic bodies. Manual entry is to be virtually eliminated through mechanisation; all sewer‑death families are to be compensated and workers rehabilitated into dignified livelihoods.

[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369398-dr-balram-singh-vs-union?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=