Recently, the Calcutta High Court took serious note of the unnatural deaths and injuries suffered by labourers engaged in sewer de-silting work in South Kolkata. The Court, hearing a public interest litigation arising from the incident, examined allegations of negligence by civic authorities and agencies involved in the project. In an important observation, the Court expressed concern that despite clear Supreme Court directions, the mandated mechanisms for preventing hazardous manual scavenging had not been implemented.
Brief Facts:
The incident concerned eight labourers who entered an underground sewer line during a de-silting operation in South Kolkata under a project run by the municipal authorities. During the work, the labourers became unconscious after inhaling toxic fumes and drowning in sludge. Four of them died, while the remaining workers sustained serious injuries. Following media reports, a committee was constituted to inquire into the matter, and a criminal case was registered, but no arrests were made.
The petitioners, an organisation working on public rights and a civil rights activist, approached the Court seeking an independent investigation, fair compensation for the victims’ families, and accountability of those responsible.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners argued that the deaths occurred due to gross negligence and failure to comply with safety protocols. They submitted that despite the clear prohibition against manual scavenging and hazardous sewer work under the 2013 Act, labourers were compelled to enter sewer lines without protective measures.
The petitioners relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Dr. Balaram Singh v. Union of India and Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India, emphasising that compensation for sewer deaths must be ₹30 lakh and that victims with disabilities must be adequately compensated. They submitted that the State had not complied with these directions and that the compensation disbursed was inadequate.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The municipal authority contended that the project was executed through a contractor selected through due process and that insurance coverage existed. It stated that after the incident, an enquiry committee was formed, the contractor was penalised, compensation was directed to be paid, and the contractor was blacklisted. An FIR was also lodged.
The respondents questioned the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the petitioner organisation lacked locus and had filed the petition for publicity. The police authorities submitted that an unnatural death case had been registered and that the investigation was ongoing.
Observations of the Court:
The Court examined the submissions and expressed strong displeasure at the continuation of manual scavenging and hazardous sewer work despite statutory prohibitions. It observed that such incidents were a “shocking reminder” of the State’s failure to uphold human dignity and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 17, 21, and 23.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents which mandate elimination of manual scavenging, establishment of monitoring committees, and payment of enhanced compensation. The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s directive that, “Compensation for sewer deaths shall be ₹30 lakh… and in cases of disability, not less than ₹10 lakh, extending to ₹20 lakh where the disability renders the victim economically helpless.” The Court noted that neither the State nor the municipal authority had demonstrated compliance with these binding directions. It found no material to show that any monitoring committee had been constituted as required under the 2013 Act, nor that safeguards under Sections 7 and 8, which prohibit hazardous cleaning and criminalise violations, were followed.
Further, the Court was critical of the municipal authority for shifting blame entirely to the contractor, observing that statutory responsibilities cannot be evaded. It also expressed dissatisfaction with the police response, noting the lack of updates on the investigation and absence of action against those responsible.
The decision of the Court:
The Court held that the matter raised significant issues of public importance involving violation of statutory duties, constitutional rights, and binding Supreme Court directions. It found that the civic authorities had failed to ensure compliance with safety norms and had not implemented mechanisms to prevent hazardous manual work.
The Court emphasised that compensation must align with the standards laid down by the Top Court and that accountability mechanisms must be enforced. Directions were issued to ensure compliance with statutory provisions, initiate appropriate action, and ensure that the victims’ families receive compensation consistent with the Court’s mandate.
Case Title: Association for Protection of Democratic Rights & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.A.(P) 259 2021
Coram: Justice Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Raghunath Chakraborty, Mahaboob Ahmed
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Alok Kr. Ghosh, Subhrangsu Panda
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :