Delhi High Court: Public interest litigation was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2(1)(g), 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 39 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (‘MS Act’) and provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Rules, 2013(‘MS Rules’) as being violative of Articles 14,17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of Manmohan, ACJ and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., issued notice to Union of India and Government of NCT of Delhi. Subsequently, the notice was accepted by them, and the Court had permitted to file their counter affidavits within eight weeks.
The petitioner stated that the definition of manual scavengers under Section 2(1)(g) of the MS Act was manifestly arbitrary and against the principles of reasonable classification. It was stated that the definition excluded from its purview ‘sewer cleaners and septic tank cleaners doing hazardous cleaning’, but they also cleaned, carried, disposed-off and handled human excreta from dangerous places and this exclusion further deprived them of the benefit of identification and rehabilitation provided under Sections 11 to 16 of the MS Act read with the MS Rules and other beneficial schemes brought by the Government from time to time.
The petitioner stated that the Explanation (a) of Section 2(1)(g) of the MS Act was discriminatory in nature as it only encapsulated regular and contractual employees and excluded the people cleaning excreta on daily wage basis, temporary workers, and Jajmani workers. The petitioner also stated that Explanation (b) of Section 2(1)(g) of the MS Act, by excluding persons engaged in cleaning of excreta with the help of protective gear from the definition of ‘manual scavengers’, had deprived them of the benefits related to rehabilitation, scholarships, etc. for which they are equally eligible as the nature of work remained the same.
The Court issued notice to Union of India and Government of NCT of Delhi. Subsequently, the notice was accepted by them, and the Court had permitted them to file their counter affidavits within eight weeks.
The matter would next be listed on 04-07-2024.
[Kallu v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 2495 of 2024, Order dated 20-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Pawan Reley with Akshay Lodhi, Gaurav Bharatwaj and Simran Singh, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Jivesh Kumar Tiwari with Samiksha, Advocates; Anupam Srivastava with Vasuh Misra, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
