Court quashes provisions making private employers liable for compensation instead of State; directs uniform compensation and rehabilitation for all hazardous cleaning workers regardless of employer type
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 13, 2026, the Bombay High Court has quashed discriminatory provisions of Government Resolutions that unfairly burdened private contractors with compensation obligations for deceased sanitation workers while exempting State and local authorities from similar responsibility.
The Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, hearing a writ petition filed by Shramik Janata Sangh and others, found that Item No. 11 of the Government Resolution dated December 12, 2019 (and its reiteration in the Government Resolution dated April 30, 2025) violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating unjust discrimination between sanitation workers employed by the State versus those employed by private contractors.
The Core Issue
The petition challenged the government's policy of making private individuals, societies, and institutions liable for compensating families of sanitation workers who died during hazardous cleaning operations such as sewer and septic tank cleaning. The policy effectively shifted the burden away from State and local authorities, who are the primary regulators responsible for ensuring worker safety compliance. This approach created a perverse incentive structure where families of victims struggled to obtain compensation from cash-strapped private employers, while those employed by public agencies received prompt relief from the government.
Judicial Analysis and Constitutional Violation
Justice Manjusha Deshpande, writing for the bench, emphasized that despite India's constitutional guarantees of equality before law after 75 years, the social evil of manual scavenging persists due to systemic discrimination based on caste. The court observed that the discriminatory policy violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
The judgment comprehensively analyzed the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (the Act), which makes no distinction based on the employer's nature. The court reasoned that if the Act itself does not discriminate, the State cannot create artificial classifications through executive resolutions that undermine the Act's objective of eliminating the dehumanizing practice of manual scavenging.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The High Court relied heavily on two Supreme Court judgments:
1. Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (2014): The Supreme Court directed all State Governments and Union Territories to fully implement the 2013 Act and fixed compensation at Rs. 10 lakhs for each death occurring since 1993.
2. Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2024): The Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.30 lakhs (current equivalent value of the original amount) and crucially clarified that compensation must be paid "by the agency concerned i.e., the Union, the Union Territory or the State as the case may be." This direction unequivocally cast the compensation obligation on government entities, not private employers.
Key Findings and Directions
The court issued comprehensive directions addressing multiple aspects:
1. Quashing of Discriminatory Provisions: Item No. 11 of both Government Resolutions dated December 12, 2019 and April 30, 2025 stands quashed and set aside insofar as it discriminates against sanitation workers employed by private contractors.
2. Uniform Compensation Framework: Sanitation workers in the private sector are now entitled to receive compensation from the State Government at the rate of Rs.30 lakhs per deceased worker. The State can subsequently recover this amount from private employers, thereby protecting vulnerable families from the precarious situation of pursuing reluctant private entities for compensation.
3. Immediate Relief: The court directed payment of Rs.30 lakhs each to five specifically identified victims (Devidas Chandrakant, Mahadeve Dhondiram Zope, Suraj Madhave, Ghanashyam Kori, and Ritik Kurkute) within eight weeks if not already compensated.
4. Comprehensive Identification and Compensation: The State Government is directed to identify all persons who died while engaged in "hazardous cleaning" since 1993 within six months from the judgment date. Upon identification, compensation of Rs.30 lakhs must be paid to dependants of each deceased.
5. Rehabilitation Mandate: State and local bodies are directed to ensure social and economic rehabilitation of dependants of sanitation workers and manual scavengers as contemplated under the 2013 Act, without creating distinctions between different categories of workers.
6. Vigilance Committee Activation: District and Sub-Divisional Vigilance Committees, already constituted under the 2013 Act, are directed to actively facilitate identification, compensation, and rehabilitation of affected families.
Implementation Concerns Highlighted
Justice Deshpande's judgment expressed deep concern about the State's lackadaisical implementation despite comprehensive legislative frameworks and judicial directions. The court noted that despite claims of elimination of manual scavenging in 36 districts (certified to the Union Government in August 2023), the State's own records showed 81 compensation cases as of July 2024, indicating the persistence of the problem.
The judgment criticized the incomplete data submission by the State, which provided information about identified manual scavengers but failed to compile comprehensive data about hazardous cleaning deaths since 1993. The court found this gap unacceptable and made it the State's responsibility to conduct thorough identification within six months.
Procedural Mechanism for Recovery
An innovative aspect of the judgment is the direction that allows immediate payment of compensation from State funds with subsequent recovery from private employers. This mechanism acknowledges the practical reality that waiting for private employers to pay would leave vulnerable families in dire circumstances. The State, being a more reliable entity with financial capacity and collection mechanisms, can ensure prompt relief while pursuing recovery through established channels like property tax collection against private establishments.
Broader Constitutional Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional rights to equality and dignity cannot be subordinated to administrative convenience or fiscal considerations. The court rejected the State's implicit argument that shifting burden to private contractors was administratively expedient, holding that fundamental rights require the State to bear this responsibility as a matter of constitutional obligation.
The bench also highlighted the link between manual scavenging, caste discrimination, and dignified living standards, positioning this case within the larger framework of constitutional commitment to eliminating caste-based exploitation.
Rehabilitation Framework Deficiency
The court expressed particular dismay at the absence of rehabilitation measures. While compensation addresses immediate financial loss, the 2013 Act contemplates comprehensive rehabilitation including:
- - One-time cash assistance
- - Educational scholarships for children
- - Residential plots with construction assistance
- - Livelihood skills training with monthly stipends
- - Subsidized loans for alternative occupations
The State's affidavit revealed that except for three districts (Jalgaon, Nanded, and Raigad), no meaningful rehabilitation had been undertaken, prompting strong judicial intervention.
Practical Impact
This judgment will significantly benefit thousands of sanitation workers' dependants across Maharashtra. The tripling of compensation from Rs.10 lakhs to Rs.30 lakhs, combined with uniform application regardless of employer type, represents substantial economic relief. The mechanism for State payment with later recovery ensures that families need not engage in prolonged litigation against employers or navigate complex legal procedures to claim their entitlements.
The mandatory identification exercise within six months will likely unearth numerous cases of uncompensated deaths, potentially affecting hundreds of additional families who were previously denied relief due to lack of systematic record-keeping.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's judgment represents a significant assertion of constitutional values and judicial review authority over executive policy-making. By quashing discriminatory provisions and directing comprehensive implementation of protective legislation, the court has reaffirmed that the State cannot abdicate its fundamental duty to protect vulnerable citizens from exploitation, regardless of administrative or fiscal considerations.
Bottom Line:
Manual scavenging - Government resolutions discriminating sanitation workers employed by private contractors versus those employed by the State/local authorities quashed - Compensation for hazardous cleaning deaths enhanced to Rs. 30,00,000/- in line with Supreme Court directions.
Statutory Provisions
Section 2(d) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013; Sections 11, 12, 13, 24(1), and 24(3) of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013; Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Shramik Janata Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id 2972562
