SUPREME COURT QUESTIONS PWD OVER MANUAL SEWER CLEANING OUTSIDE ITS PREMISES:

The Supreme Court has taken serious note of manual sewer cleaning being carried out right outside its own premises and has sought an explanation from the Public Works Department (PWD) regarding the continuation of this prohibited and hazardous practice. The matter is being monitored by a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar, which has been overseeing compliance with its earlier directions to eliminate manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning.

The issue traces back to the Court’s judgment in *Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India* in 2023, where a series of directives were issued to completely eradicate the dangerous and inhuman practice of manual scavenging. In January this year, the same bench had specifically directed that manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning be stopped in all major metropolitan cities, including Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, and Hyderabad. The Court had repeatedly expressed concern over what it described as a lackadaisical approach by the authorities in implementing these orders.

On August 6, during the ongoing proceedings, the Court was presented with photographs by Senior Advocate and amicus curiae K. Parameshwar, showing workers engaged in manual cleaning without any protective gear. The images revealed that such hazardous cleaning was taking place directly at Gate F of the Supreme Court itself. Disturbed by this revelation, the bench ordered the concerned PWD officer to file a reply explaining why this practice was continuing, despite the clear and binding prohibition.

The bench also impleaded the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) as a party to the case and issued notice to it. The EDMC, through its Chief Executive Officer, was directed to file an affidavit explaining why manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning was still being carried out with human labour, thereby exposing workers to life-threatening risks. The Court stressed that these workers were not even provided with proper safety equipment, in violation of both legal mandates and human dignity.

The Court cautioned that if a satisfactory explanation is not provided by the next hearing date, it would have no choice but to order the registration of a first information report (FIR) against the officers responsible for allowing such practices to continue. It made it clear that accountability would be enforced at an individual level to ensure compliance.

The matter is now listed for further hearing on September 10. The bench indicated that if, by that date, the replies from the PWD or the EDMC fail to convincingly explain the circumstances and the remedial steps taken, criminal proceedings would be initiated against those found responsible for exposing workers to hazardous conditions.

The applications leading to this latest development were filed by Advocate Akshay Lodhi, represented by Advocate-on-Record Pawan Reley. The case highlights the continuing struggle to enforce the prohibition on manual scavenging, despite repeated judicial interventions, and underscores the Court’s readiness to impose strict measures where its orders are flouted—even when the violations occur right outside its own gates.