In a significant intervention on compensation and institutional accountability, the Supreme Court has stepped in to address confusion surrounding payouts for sewer deaths and raised sharp concerns over administrative inertia affecting the welfare of Safai Karamcharis. While examining multiple connected applications, the Court scrutinised how its landmark directions on manual scavenging are being implemented, and whether inconsistent interpretations and official delays are undermining victims’ rights.
The controversy arose from a series of petitions and applications linked to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India, which enhanced compensation for sewer deaths to Rs.30 lakh. A fresh writ sought similar relief, prompting the Court to club matters to avoid conflicting rulings. Meanwhile, NALSA flagged divergent High Court views on whether families who had already received Rs.10 lakh before October 2023 were entitled to additional compensation.
Parallelly, the Union government sought clarification on affidavits claiming “zero manual scavenging” in hundreds of districts, figures that blurred the distinction between manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning. The Court was also confronted with stagnation in appointing key office-bearers to the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, despite repeated assurances.
The bench clarified that cases where Rs.10 lakh compensation had already been determined and paid before 20 October 2023 would not be reopened, but made it unequivocal that where compensation had not been fixed or disbursed by that date, even for earlier deaths, the amount payable would be Rs.30 lakh. “Such cases or claims would not be reopened,” the Court said, while simultaneously holding that unpaid claims must now meet the enhanced standard. The Court also corrected the record, noting that government affidavits spoke only of surveys on manual scavengers, not manual sewer cleaning, by deleting the misleading reference.
Expressing displeasure over continued delays in staffing the National Commission, the bench warned that non-functioning of the body would “paralyze the implementation of the Act” and directed the Union to file a sworn timeline for appointments, failing which the Principal Secretary would be summoned in person. Consequently, the clarification applications were disposed of, and the matter was listed for further monitoring.
Picture Source :