ADYPNMCC-P

Arguments Issue II

Table of contents
1.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to
the sanitation workers goes against the UDHR guidelines..............................................1
1.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to
the sanitation workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of Indiana...............2
1.2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers violated Article 21................................................................2
1.2.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution.......................2

WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES

BY THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED
UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.

1.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers goes against the UDHR guidelines.

Indiana is signatory to the UDHR.1 The Member States have pledged themselves
to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal
respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms2.

The deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul highlight a clear violation of their human rights
as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Firstly, Article 3 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to life3. Both
Pratyaksh and Rahul were deprived of this fundamental right due to unsafe

1
Moot Problem
2
UDHR Preamble
3
UDHR Article 3

1
 working conditions imposed upon them by their employers. Pratyaksh died due to
lack of safety gear while cleaning a sewer, and Rahul lost his life while trying to
clear a drain without proper equipment or training.

Secondly, Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment or punishment4. Both Pratyaksh and Rahul were subjected to extremely
hazardous working conditions without adequate protection, which ultimately led to
their deaths. This constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted upon
them by their employers.

Additionally, Article 8 of the UDHR guarantees the right to an effective remedy

for violations of fundamental rights5. However, neither Pratyaksh nor Rahul
received any form of compensation or justice for the injustices they faced.
Pratyaksh's family was threatened by the contractor, and Rahul's death was simply
overlooked, with no accountability placed on the employer or authorities. The
point is further elaborated in point no. __

Furthermore, Article 23 of the UDHR affirms the right to just and favorable
conditions of work, including protection against unemployment6. Both Pratyaksh
and Rahul were employed in hazardous occupations with no regard for their safety
or well-being. They were not provided with the necessary equipment or training to
perform their jobs safely, leading to tragic consequences.

In conclusion, the deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul represent a clear violation of

their human rights as outlined in the UDHR. Their employers failed to provide
them with safe working conditions, leading to their untimely deaths. Justice must
be served for these injustices, and measures must be taken to prevent similar
tragedies from occurring in the future.

1.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of
Indiana.
Human dignity postulates an equality between persons. The equality of all human
beings entails being free from the restrictive and dehumanizing effect of stereotypes
and being equally entitled to the protection of law7. Rooted in the trinity of dignity,
equality and liberty, the fundamental rights that form the foundation of the
constitutional makeup categorically reject all forms of social exclusion, and imagine

4
UDHR Article 5
5
UDHR Article 8
6
UDHR Article23
7
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v The State of Kerala and Ors. (2019) 11 SCC

2
 social reordering based on a constitutional order that promotes justice, equality,
dignity and liberty of all individuals. It is humbly submitted that the Manual
Scavengers have time and again being deprived from their right to life [1.2.1] and
equality [1.2.2].

1.2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers violated Article 21.
It was observed by Honorable CJ Bhagavati in Maneka Gandhi v Union of
India case that 8“The expression ‘life’ in article 21 does not connote merely
physical or animal existence. The right to ‘life’ includes the right to live
with human dignity”. Pratyaksh inhaled excessive amounts of carbon
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and methane, while Rahul was exposed to
human excreta and sewage water. These substances are harmful and
potentially fatal, and being forced to work in such conditions without
proper safety measures violates their dignity as human beings. Providing a
safety kit was the very bare minimum effort to be taken by the Municipal
Corporation.
As a matter of fact this practice is common and this has been admitted by
the SC in case of Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra9 –
“We see sewer workers dying in due to poisonous gases in chambers. They
are like death traps. We have not been able to provide the masks and
oxygen cylinders for entering in sewer chambers, we cannot leave them to
die like this and avoid tortuous liability concerned with
officials/machinery, and they are still discriminated within the society in
the matter of enjoying their civil rights and cannot live with human
dignity.”

The deaths of sewerage workers due to asphyxiation while cleaning sewers

and septic tanks is a matter of grave concern. Despite the existence of laws
prohibiting manual scavenging and hazardous manual cleaning of sewers
and septic tanks, such incidents continue to occur with alarming
frequency.10

8
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] AIR 597 (SC)
9
AIRONLINE 2019 SC 1167
10
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. Union of India & Ors. (2019)

3
 In fact their right to life was completely snatched away from them as they
died in the process, and yet no investigation was conducted to look into this
serious matter denying them the right to equality. This is further explained
in the following point.

1.2.2 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures
to the sanitation workers violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution.
It was observed by the SC during the Royappa case that –11“Equality and
arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in a republic
while to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch”.
Equality is the cornerstone of the rule of law in a democratic society,
whereas arbitrariness is characteristic of absolute authority and
unpredictability. The inadequate investigation conducted in the cases of the
victims and the absence of valid justifications for such lapses, along with
the failure to provide compensation to Pratyask’s family despite their
eligibility, coupled with the threats they faced, proves the arbitrary nature
of the state's actions.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v.

Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors. it was noted that intelligible differentia
and rational nexus are the twin tests of reasonable classification12. Now, In
order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions
must be fulfilled namely,
(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from
others left out of the group and,
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the statute in question.13
The exploitation of manual scavengers' illiteracy and lack of awareness
highlights a systematic failure in the treatment of this marginalized group.
By subjecting them to hazardous working conditions and denying them
their rights, authorities perpetuate injustice and discrimination. This
underscores a lack of reasonableness in their actions and a disregard for the

11
E. P Royappa v state [1974] 2 SCR 348
12
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19
13
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279.

4
 well-being of manual scavengers. This is further elaborated in the next
point.

1.3 Historically, Manual Scavengers face discrimination in all forms hence

violating their Rights under Article 17
Manual scavengers have been the worst victims of the system of “purity and
pollution”14. Article 17 was a promise to lower castes that they will be free from
social oppression. Yet for the marginalized communities, little has changed15.
Multiple attempts have been made to eradicate this derogatory practice since
Independence.

According to a report published by the LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT16. –

‘The Central Advisory Board for Harijan Welfare, initiated in 1956 under Pandit
Gobind Ballabh Pant, proposed a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to address the
challenges faced by sweepers and scavengers. Prior to this, the Kaka Kalelkar
Commission in 1955 had highlighted the sub-human conditions of these
communities and urged for modern sanitation methods. The Malkani Committee
(1957) advocated for abolishing manual scavenging, while another committee
chaired by Prof. N.R. Malkani in 1965 examined the abolition of customary rights.
The Pandya Committee (1968-69) recommended comprehensive national legislation
to regulate working and living conditions, with similar efforts seen at the state level
in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, and Karnataka. In addition to this various
schemes like the National Scheme of Liberation and Rehabilitation of Scavengers
(NSLRS), and the National Safai Karamcharis Finance and Development
Corporation (NSKFDC) etc. has been established for the welfare of Manual
Scavengers. Recommendations were given by the National Advisory Council in its
resolution dated 23.10.2010 and "The Prohibition of Employment as Manual
Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Bill, 2012" was introduced in 2012.

Despite all these efforts the Manual scavengers continue to live a derogatory life. It
was held in the Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India & Ors. (2014)17that –

“It is undisputed that manual scavenging is a practice that continues to be

employed in various parts of the country. The employment of manual scavengers for
14
Supra note 7
15
Ibid
16
Manual Scavengers: Welfare and Rehabilitation, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, Reference note. No. 18
/RN/Ref./August /2013
17
2014 (11) SCC 224

5
the removal of human excreta is an affront to human dignity and a blot on the
national development agenda. The continuing existence of this practice also
underscores the failure of various laws, including the Employment of Manual
Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, to eradicate
this social evil.”