The Court expressed sadness that, despite the country having been independent for 75 years, low-income individuals still needed to do manual scavenging duties.
In its ruling in Court on its own Motion v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors on Thursday, the Delhi High Court said that the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, was not being implemented. Even after 75 years of independence, it is terrible that low-income individuals still have to labor as manual scavengers.
This was taken into consideration by a division bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad, which ordered the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to pay the families of two people who died on September 9 while clearing a clogged sewer in a residential community in Mundka, outside of Delhi, 10 lakhs in compensation.
According to reports, 32-year-old Rohit Chandiliya died on September 9 while emptying a sewer. The 30-year-old security guard Ashok, who was posted nearby and made an effort to help Chandiliya, also died in the tragedy. The event had been brought before the court on its own motion.
Manual Scavenging is for worker initiative?
Senior attorney Rajshekhar Rao informed the court in his position as an amicus curiae that according to the DDA’s report, the worker was cleaning the manhole on his own initiative and without getting orders from a higher authority.
He explained that according to the report, the DDA had received a complaint about a sewage blockage and that Chandiliya was attempting to find a solution.
The Supreme Court previously established the law in this matter, according to the Court, and compensation must be given right away.
Therefore, the bench ordered the DDA to give the families compensation and to take into account their request for a compassionate appointment.
It further said that the Court must be informed of the compassionate appointment decision within a month and that the vice-chairman of the authority must appear in court on the following hearing date if the order is not followed.
