Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2009 DIGILAW 1002 (SC)

Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India

2009-04-30

J.M.PANCHAL, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, P.SATHASIVAM

body2009
ORDER : 1. The petitioner has submitted a detailed report to the effect that in the State of Rajasthan, manual scavenger work is widely prevalent in various districts. The details i.e. names and addresses etc. of the workers and also the persons who employed these workers are also being given. It is noticed that this is prevalent in the districts of Jhunjhunu, Ajmer, Nagaur, Bikaner, Bharatpur, Churu, Karoli, Seekar and Alawar. Registry to send a copy of these details i.e. names and addresses of the Dry Latrine owners and employers along with a copy of the report submitted by the petitioner to each of the District Collectors mentioned above. Each District Collector has to explain as to why steps are not being taken against the employers who employed the manual scavengers under the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1993 Act'). So also in the State of Haryana it is reported that in the Districts of Ambala, Fatehabad, Jind, Kaithal, Kurukashetra, Panipat and Yamuna Nagar this manual scavenger work is prevalent. A copy of the details be furnished to each District Collector to show cause as to why the respective Collectors have not taken steps to prosecute the concerned persons/employers under the 1993 Act. So also in the State of Punjab it is submitted that in the districts of Nava Shahar, Firozpur, Sangroor, Mohali, Amritsar, Faridkot, Ludhiana and Fateh Garh Sahib it is prevalent. The District Collectors of these districts are directed to explain as to why steps were not taken to prosecute the violators of the provisions of the 1993 Act. 2. List on 08.05.2009.