CHAPTER 4

THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVANGER

AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT 2013

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Since the Indian Parliament passed the Manual Scavengers Employment Prohibition and
Rehabilitation Bill, 2013, on September 7, 2013, it has become increasingly difficult to
ignore this critical issue. Manual scanning, in a nutshell, is the act of manually disposing of
human waste from unsanitary manual or dry toilets that lack a flushing mechanism. Standard
brooms and metal plates are required to collect the waste generated by this method.
According to one of the most recent publications of the National Human Rights Commission
of India, this waste will be piled up in baskets and then transported to locations far from the
home on the heads of garbage collectors. The sanitation system stretches for miles. As has
been amply demonstrated, these wastes cause numerous well-known intestinal diseases,
including cholera, diarrhea, dysentery, typhoid, infectious hepatitis, hookworm, and fatal
diseases and other similar deaths. According to numerous studies, the majority of infectious
diseases are contagious and account for nearly 80% of infections in developing countries
(Srivastava, 1997). Cleaning is typically a responsibility shared by a class and a family. This
is especially true for Dalits, who have historically been subjected to forced labor and/or
slavery. According to the International Dalit Solidarity Network, 1.3 million Dalits are
employed in the manual cleaning industry. The majority of these people are female. This
article will attempt to trace the history of manual cleaning in India. It is a common practice in
India. In this regard, I'll discuss the constitutional mandate to improve the living conditions of
this population, as well as previous administrations' actions. The paper's thorough
examination of the 2013 Rehabilitation Act and the recently passed Manual Scavenger
Employment Prohibition Act, as well as the author's recommendations for legal reform, stand
out the most..

4.2 PREAMBLE OF THE ACT

“An Act to provide for the prohibition of employment as manual scavengers, rehabilitation of
manual scavengers and their families, and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.

1
WHEREAS promoting among the citizens fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual is
enshrined as one of the goals in the Preamble to the Constitution;

AND WHEREAS the right to live with dignity is also implicit in the Fundamental Rights
guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution;

AND WHEREAS article 46 of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that the State shall protect
the weaker sections, and, particularly, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from
social injustice and all forms of exploitation;

AND WHEREAS the dehumanising practice of manual scavenging, arising from the
continuing existence of insanitary latrines and a highly iniquitous caste system, still persists
in various parts of the country, and the existing laws have not proved adequate in eliminating
the twin evils of insanitary latrines and manual scavenging;

AND WHEREAS it is necessary to correct the historical injustice and indignity suffered by
the manual scavengers, and to rehabilitate them to a life of dignity”.

4.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

The scheme’s objective is to help the manual scavengers for their rehabilitation in alternative
professions, found during various surveys. 

Under the “Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act,
2013” the Central Sector of Self Employment Scheme for Manual Scavengers’ Rehabilitation
(SRMS), was effective from November, 2013. SRMS made following significant changes: 

1. The scavenger manual's description in accordance with the Manual Scavenger Act of
2013.

2. Make a one-time cash assistance offer in the amount of Rs. 40,000.

3. The overall cost of projects related to sanitation will increase from the current amount
of Rs. 5 lakhs to the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 15 lakhs respectively.

4. The increase in the maximum allowable capital subsidy is based on the project cost,
which has increased from 20,000 rupees to 3,250,000 rupees.

5. During the training period, the monthly stipend rate will be increased from the current
rate of Rs. 1,000 to Rs.3,000, and the training period will be increased from 1-2
years..

2
4.4 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE ACT

According to the objectives outlined in the Indian Constitution's preamble, one of the act's
goals is to preserve an individual's dignity, which is stated in the act's first paragraph. It is
critical to recognize that one's work is a form of worship, so the stigma associated with
occupation must be removed. These people, on the other hand, should be treated with the
utmost respect:

1. “The Act also highlights the Fundamental Rights conferred on the people irrespective
of caste, creed and religion.
2. The Act has also referred to Article 46 of the Constitution, which, inter alia, provides
that the state shall protect the weaker sections, and, particularly, the scheduled castes
and the scheduled tribes from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
3. The Act prohibits the employment of manual scavengers, the manual cleaning of
sewers and septic tanks without protective equipment and the construction of
insanitary latrines.
4. Section 2(1) (d) of the Act defines the term ‘hazardous cleaning’. It refers to the use
of protective gear and other cleaning devices and ensuring observance of safety
precautions. However, the type of protective gear and other cleaning devices is not at
all defined under the Act.
5. Section 2(1) (e) define the term ‘insanitary latrine’. It is well known that the Indian
Railway is the major promoter of manual scavengers and continues to practice manual
scavenging inspite of the stringent provisions laid down in the Act. There may be
certain difficulties for the railway to avoid manual scavenging in case of small latrines
constructed inside the railway compartments. Rather the Railway Authority should
devise a method to clean the latrines by way of constructing portable/removable small
septic tanks beneath the small latrines inside the compartments, which may be cleared
in the stations from time to time. This will do away with the practice of clean- ing the
railway tracks in and around the stations.
6. The Act seeks to rehabilitate manual scavengers and to provide for their alternative
employment. In view of the existing hereditary obnoxious and inhuman condition of
manual scavengers, the government has formulated various schemes/programmes for
their social and economic upliftment. However, large-scale corruption was rampant in

3
 the rehabilitation scheme, which involved ₹ 7356 million at the time of
implementation by the Government of India. Approximately, 76 per cent people
outside the eligible criteria received benefits. This fact came to light in the public
hearing of Rastriya Garima Abhiyan (National Campaign for Dignity and Eradication
of Manual Scavenging) at New Delhi on 28 March 2012.
7. Under the Act, each local authority viz., Municipality, Municipal Corporation, Gaon
Panchayats, village councils have respective jurisdictions to construct sanitary
community latrines.
8. Section 4(1) of the Act says that every Local authority shall: (a) carry out a survey of
insanitary latrines existing within its jurisdiction, and publish a list of insanitary
latrines, in such manner as may be prescribed, within a period of two months from the
date of commencement of this Act. It is observed that the Act refers to identification
of only insanitary latrines. However, the Act does not mention about the identification
of spots where open defecation is done and consequently someone has to clean
manually these faeces from the open spaces in urban areas.
9. The owner or user of insanitary latrines shall be responsible for converting or
dismantling of insanitary latrines at his or her own cost. In case of failure to do so the
local authority will demolish the same and construct a sanitary latrine in its place and
local authority is authorised to release the cost of demolition and construction from
the person concerned. It is observed that financial assistance for demolition and
construction of sanitary latrines will be necessary in case of Below Poverty Line
(BPL) families and this class will constitute the majority. Such families should be
exempted from penal provisions. Rather the local authority should be entrusted to
construct sanitary or community latrines in such cases.
10. The District Magistrate and the local authority shall be the implementing authority. It
is observed that often, the District Magistrate is a member of the civil services (and in
states, the same person as the District Collector) and has powers of an Executive
Magistrate. Several other Executive Magistrates would be in his chain of command.
Granting the Executive Magistrate the power to try cases for non-implementation of
provisions of the Act could lead to a situation where the judge is trying a case against
himself or against a person who falls within the same administrative set-up. It is
unclear how this conflict of interest will be resolved.
11. Offences under the Act shall be cognizable and non-bailable and may be tried
summarily. While the maximum punishment laid down in the 1993 Act was two

4
 years, it has been raised to five years in the 2012 Act. The concept of summary trials
was introduced in India through an amendment to the Section 260, Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) in 2008. Summary trials were permitted for certain types of
offences, particularly those of a minor nature for which the maximum imprisonment
is two years. According to the CrPC, the maximum sentence of imprisonment for an
offence that is tried summarily cannot exceed three months. Given the nature of
summary trials under the CrPC, it is unclear how offences carrying punishment of five
years, as is the case in the Act, will fit into this framework.
12. The Act permits the state governments to empower the Executive magistrates to
conduct trials for offences. This may lead to conflict of interest between the executive
and the judiciary.
13. As far as the constitution of the Vigilance Committees stipulated under the Chapter
VII of the Act is concerned, there must be inclusion of at least one member who has
adequate knowledge in the field of Human Rights.
14. Further, the Central Monitoring Committee should meet at least once in quarterly
instead of once in every six months as stipulated under the Act”.

To put it succinctly, the Act's provision for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers is a good
thing; however, the Act will need to employ a strict strategy that focuses on both the
prohibition and rehabilitation of the practice. This is because, despite the Employment of
Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act of 1993, the cruel
practice of manual scavenging persists. Laws, no matter how forcefully or carefully crafted
with the best of intentions, cannot change how people feel about their less fortunate siblings.
The fundamental principles of freedom, justice, equality, and dignity enshrined in the Indian
Constitution do not appear to have fully permeated the Indian people's hearts and minds. The
advantages of using sanitary latrines, as well as how to maintain good hygiene after using
them, must be communicated to the general public. To put an end to manual scavenging, we
must all work together.

Individuals who manually clean human waste from unsanitary restrooms, open pits or drains,
railroad tracks, and other similar locations have recently been included in the definition of
“manual scavenger”.

Prohibitions

 • The construction of unsanitary latrines;

5
  The start of any contract for the employment of manual scavengers;
 Financial difficulties that prevent the employer from terminating the employee;
 Hand scavenging, with the exception of manual cleaning of septic tanks and sewers,
which requires protective equipment.
 The worker will be paid the same, or at least the same amount, for work that does not
require manual scavenging.
 No person, organization, or local authority hires or employs another person to clean
hazardous septic tanks or sewers, either directly or indirectly. Direct and indirect
employment are both included.

Penalty

 “For employing manual scavengers or failing to demolish insanitary latrines:

imprisonment of one year or a fine of Rs 50,000, or both, for the first violation. For
subsequent violations by the same person, the punishment shall stand at imprisonment
for two years, or a fine of Rs 1 lakh, or both

 For hazardous cleaning of septic tanks and sewers: imprisonment of two years and/or
a fine of Rs 2 lakh for the first violation. For subsequent violations by the same
person, the punishment shall stand enhanced to imprisonment for five years, or fine of
Rs 5 lakh, or both”.

Implementation

 “Each occupier of an insanitary latrine is responsible for converting or demolishing it

at his own cost

 If he/she fails to do so, the local authority will convert the latrine and recover the cost
from him/her

 Each local authority, cantonment board and railway authority is responsible for
surveying insanitary latrines within their jurisdiction, and providing sanitary
community latrines within such period not exceeding three years from the date of
commencement of the Act

 It is the duty of every local authority to use modern technology to clean sewers, septic
tanks and other spaces within their control

6
  Vigilance and monitoring committees to be set up at the sub-division and district
levels

 Monitoring committee to be set up at the state and central levels

 The Act has definite provisions for identification of manual scavengers and insanitary
latrines

 The municipality of a locality or the panchayat of a village will conduct a survey to

identify existing manual scavengers and insanitary latrines

 The municipality (in urban areas) and panchayats (in rural areas) will also be
responsible for the rehabilitation of those identified as manual scavengers

 The appropriate government may also appoint certain persons as inspectors and such
inspectors shall have the power to enter any premises within his/her jurisdiction for
the purpose of determining whether any person has been employed as a manual
scavenger at such place”

Rehabilitation

 “Manual scavengers who are identified in urban areas receive a photo identity card
giving information about dependent family members

 An initial, one-time cash assistance shall be provided

 Manual scavengers are to be allotted a residential plot and financial assistance for
construction, or a ready-built house and scholarship for children as per the relevant
scheme of the central or state government or the local authorities as the case may be

 They shall be trained in a livelihood skill, subject to eligibility, and provided a

monthly stipend of Rs 3,000 during the training

 They shall be provided with subsidy and concessional loan if they want to take up an
alternative profession, subject to eligibility

 Legal and programmatic assistance will also be provided as notified by the central or
state government

 Manual scavengers in rural areas will be rehabilitated by as per the previous provision
relating to urban manual scavengers”.

7
4.5 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ACT

In 2018, a fascinating documentary was released that revealed the actuality of manual
scavenging, “The Cost of Cleanliness – Documentary on Deaths of Manual Scavengers in
India.” This clearly showed the manual scavenging even though banned by the law is still
prevailing in India. 

Provisions of the Act critically analysed:

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS

Definition of manual scavenging: 1Despite the fact that the 2013 Act was intended to
prohibit the employment of manual scavengers, the definition of "manual scavenger" in
section 2(g)(1) of the Act allows scavengers to be employed. According to the definition of
the term, a person wearing protective gear is not a "manual scavenger." [Requires citation]
People who clean feces for a living are exempt from the rule as long as they use the necessary
tools and safety equipment. Scavenging is not a respectable occupation, regardless of whether
the excrement is cleaned mechanically or by hand. As a result, using mechanical tools to
clean excrement does not elevate the status of scavenging. It is against the spirit of the 2013
Act and the Indian Constitution to subject someone to clean human excrement, as implied by
the name. This is because the Indian Constitution forbids forced exposure to human waste. It
should be illegal to clean up any type of human waste, not just feces.

Barriers to court: Section 10 of the 2013 Act, which is very similar to Section 10 of the
1993 Act, makes it unlawful for a court to exercise jurisdiction over an offense unless a
complaint is filed within three months of the alleged date of the offense. 2 Those who violate
the Act's terms may continue to do so without fear of repercussions, regardless of why a
criminal complaint was not filed. If a criminal complaint is not filed within the required time
frame for any reason, those who violate the terms of the Act may escape punishment and go
free. There isn't enough time to file credible allegations. The deadline is in three months. A
crime is always considered a crime once committed. Furthermore, because the claimant must
first obtain consent from the appropriate state government, the court's ability to receive
complaints is rendered null and void.

1
WPC NO 583 of 2003.
2
Id at.

8
Ambiguity in the framing of the schemes and accountability of the implementing
authorities: “Even though the 2013 Act provides for rehabilitation, it does not prescribe any
clear rehabilitation measures to be enforced. Also, the Act is not explicit on the
implementation process, nor is it explicit whose duty it is to frame the schemes and execute
them”.

Penalties: Penalties are imposed for violations of the Clean Water and Sanitation Act of
2013, which prohibits the use of a manual scavenger, the construction of a dry latrine, and
risky human sewer or septic tank cleaning. However, the fines imposed are extremely low.
Instead of imposing light penalties, the 2013 Act could have made any infraction a crime,
greatly reducing the risks associated with manual scavenging. It would have been easier and
more efficient to eliminate the risk associated with manual scavenging if this had been done.
The duties of implementing authorities in the event of noncompliance or noncompliance with
the Act's provisions are not mentioned in the 2013 Act.3

Railway workers: A passenger coach on a railroad is exempt from the Act's provisions,
which state that as long as it is cleaned with protective gear, it is not considered an unsanitary
latrine. Technological advancements that make the profession humane, respectable, and clean
will liberate sewer and rail workers while also ensuring that no one is forced to come into
physical or other direct contact with dirt that is harmful to their health. Furthermore, these
improvements will protect people from potentially harmful dirt that they may come into
direct contact with. As previously stated, the Indian Railways and local governments could
invest in internationally accessible technologies. Humans would be able to handle excrement
mechanically using these technologies. Despite the availability of cheap human labor, these
public investments are not made by the federal, state, or local governments. These individuals
are forced to work because they were born into the lowest castes and have no other means of
support. Unfortunately, they are frequently treated as disposable, and they die at a young age.
Asphyxiation in sewers, respiratory or skin conditions, and other occupational health risks for
which they lack medical insurance and are frequently de-insured are the most common causes
of this.
3
“The penalty for employing manual scavengers or failing to demolish insanitary latrines is imprisonment of
one year and/or a fine of Rs. 50,000 for the first offence. Subsequent offences will be punished with
imprisonment up to two years and/or a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The penalty for the hazardous cleaning of septic
tanks and sewers is imprisonment of two years and/or a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 for the first offence, and five years
and/or a fine of Rs. 5,00,000 for subsequent offences. Offences under this law are cognizable and non-bailable.
The law permits the state government to confer powers of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class on an
Executive Magistrate to conduct trials. Complaints have to be made before the court within three months of
the offence”.

9
Section 2(1)(d) of the Act: The definition, in the Act of ‘hazardous cleaning’, “will only
escalate incidents regarding the cleaning of drainage/manhole, and consequently, deaths of
workers as the Act allows workers to enter the manhole with the employer ensuring the
persistence of safety standards but not fulfilling the obligation of supplying protective gear
and such cleaning devices. What kind of protective equipment and other cleaning devices will
be prescribed during the formation of the rules is a major concern. Rather, we should allow
manhole workers to enter only when necessary with complete protective equipment such as
oxygen tank, torch, computer-based constant observance of the worker, etc. Education
institutes such as fire brigade should provide them with technical training and only trained
workers should be allowed to enter, if necessary, with maximum precautions and safety
equipment”.

Section 2(1)(e) of the Act: “One of the key proponents of manual scavenging is the Indian
railways and are exempted from the concept of insanitary latrines by this Act. Thus, they will
continue manual scavenging. At railway stations, the passenger coach with Water flush
latrine will make anyone manually clean human excreta, and at present, the practice is in
continuation as prevalent”.

Section 2(1)(g) of the Act: “The Act only deals with an insanitary latrine or pit or an
uncovered drain. Whereas, in India, urbanization is growing rapidly. Because of urbanization
and lack of adequate public as well as individual toilets, open defecation is widespread and
thus contributes to manual scavenging.

Further, the explanation in 2(1)(b) has also murdered the soul of the Act and by stating that
manual scavenging can be done through protective gear, and other instruments have
legitimized it. Manual scavenging, shall in any manner be prohibited”.

Section 4(1) of the Act: “The Act here talks about identifying insanitary latrines only.
However, the Act has not mentioned the detection of places where open defecation happens,
and therefore, some have to manually clean human excreta in urban areas from the spaces
open. 

Also, an agency with professional designation must be given the task for conducting the
survey to identify the insanitary latrines and the time-frame of two months to carry out the
survey is insufficient”. 

10
Section 4(2) of the Act: “In most urban areas, the tradition of manual scavenging will carry
on for three years from the date this Act begins, from open defecation”.

Section 39(1) of the Act: “It is a big loophole in the Act because it empowers the government
to exclude the law provisions. And as a result, manual scavenging will carry on. This is quite
surprising that if Policy wants to proceed, the most inhumane activity will be permitted to
continue for six months in specific cases”.

Despite the constitutional protections, manual scavengers tend to be the perpetrators of

discrimination. This has a variety of explanations. Following are some of the reasons:

1. “India being a federal democracy as well as sanitation falls under the jurisdiction of
its States (Entry 6, List II, Schedule VII, Constitution of India), the enforcement of the
Manual Scavenging Prohibition depends entirely on the control of the states.
Therefore, the federal government has no power to take combined nationwide
measures. 

2. The legislation, as per the current schemes, requires the rehabilitation of scavengers,
although even in the past, these same schemes have failed to eliminate the practice.

3. It isn’t only the statute but the mindset of the public authorities that exacerbates the
scavenger’s plight. Consistently, the government has tried to extend the timeframe to
curb the issue, showing its lack of responsibility and commitment”.

Consequently, the present legal scheme fails to protect manual scavengers’ dignity. There is a
need for amendments to the existing law, an effective enforcement mechanism, and an
alteration in the mindset of society.

The Supreme Court, in Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, ordered “the

government to permanently eradicate manual scavenging and rehabilitate the victims of such
practice. But, there was no further action taken by the government regarding such an order.
Therefore, it shows how the judiciary is always taking necessary and active measures to
guarantee the respect of manual scavengers and maintaining the norms of human rights, but
these steps make no sense unless the other cell of the government shows some support”. 

To eliminate manual sanitation in India, the country's current legal system must be revised,
the practice must be strictly controlled, and society as a whole must adopt a new mindset.
Manual scavengers are at a disadvantage because they collect human waste, and they are also

11
at a disadvantage because they live in a wealthy community. lower and, as a result, face
severe prejudice in society Another issue that manual scavengers face. Despite the fact that
there are numerous laws and programs in place to help prevent, eliminate, and rehabilitate
victims of manual scavenging, it remains a common practice and pervasive in society. There
are numerous laws and programs in place to prevent, eliminate, and rehabilitate victims of
manual clean-up. 

Since the 1980s, Indian courts have viewed numerous economic and social rights as essential
components of the right to a decent life. This was accomplished by including the right to a
decent life in the "right to life" clause of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. According to
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, everyone has the "right to life." As a result, Article 21
will remain in effect as long as manual cleaning is performed by humans.

In addition to the law, additional strategies and actions are required to outlaw manual
cleaning and provide alternative employment options for these people. Campaigns to raise
public awareness of various health issues, good hygiene habits, and healthy lifestyle choices
are also effective methods of disseminating information about community rights. Manual
cleaning is widely acknowledged to be illegal, and people should be aware of the potential
consequences if they are detained for doing so. Manual laborers must understand the laws
that protect them from being exploited by their employers or society as a whole, as well as
their legal rights. Policies are in place to assist manual garbage collectors in educating their
children because the money they earn from their work is insufficient for them to do so.
Anyone forced to perform manual garbage collection work due to unemployment,
discrimination, or poverty should receive government assistance so that they do not have to
do so in the future. One-time interventions are ineffective; instead, a community-centered
strategy involving the provision of additional resources to the group to assist in their recovery
from this long-standing practice is required.

The government must establish modern sanitation systems and provide adequate support,
including stability and finance, to communities that want to break free from the destructive
cycle of manual restoration, because these communities face discrimination and abuse from
society. Society marginalizes and attacks people in these communities.

Towards a Complete Prohibition

The 2013 law's conditional ban on manual cleanup provided a significant incentive to keep
the status quo, which includes discrimination, stigma, prejudice, and exploitation. In general,

12
the judiciary's failure to end manual purging can be attributed to two factors: (1) the
limitations of rights discourse in addressing systematic human rights violations in the absence
of a sociocultural apparatus conducive to social norm compliance; and (2) these factors.

The use of law as a tool for social change has been extensively discussed and analysed in
socio-legal theory. The intertwining of rights with other social institutions such as race, class,
and ethnicity causes conflict in how the law interacts with these structures and determines
which is more important than another. Rights are contentious because they are an essential
component of any society's culture (Bradshaw, 2007, p. 1337; Borges & Pedro, 2009; Dror,
1958; Scheingold, 1974). As a result of the disparity between what people actually do in
society and what the law requires, there is tension between the law and social change. This
tension becomes "latency" when legislation is not updated to reflect social changes that have
occurred in society (Berger, 2008; Rosenberg, 2008; Sharma, 2012). Actual social behavior
in cases of caste discrimination differs from the legal standards. As a result, people do not
feel obligated to follow the law, resulting in noncompliance. To close the gap, "parallel
changes" in society and the legal system are required. This has not happened in the context of
India's anti-discrimination law against Dalits. Systematic violence, which is viewed as
culturally and socially discriminatory behavior, obstructs court-ordered social change.

Another factor in the 2013 law's failure was the fact that the definition of the activity of
manual garbage collector, which the law seeks to criminalize, was conceptually flawed. The
Manual Restoration Prohibition Act, passed in 2013, was intended to close loopholes in the
1993 law, but it actually created one. As previously stated, the definition of "manual
scavenger" in section 2's explanation is inadequate (1). (g). A person who cleans up feces and
enters a "gas chamber" (gutter) while wearing protective gear and using protective equipment
is not considered a "manual scavenger." Despite the provisions of the law, a significant
number of manual trash collectors continue to die, and their general well-being, health, and
morbidity deteriorate. This demonstrates the negligence of the state governments in failing to
provide the necessary safety equipment and precautions. He clarified that this "protective
equipment" could not ensure the safety of the manual garbage collectors. The Supreme
Court's most recent statements are simply a reaffirmation of the depressing reality on the
ground. No safety precaution can protect manual trash collectors from the short- and long-
term health and disease effects of their job. The apparent conflict between the right to dignity
and even adequate protective equipment must be balanced against the lack of protective

13
equipment required to save lives. That tension exists because wearing protective gear may
restrict your ability to move freely.

The right to dignity is the most fundamental human right, so it is not just their health that is
important. By removing the term "conditional prohibition" from the statute, it is made clear
that the law does not maintain the law in normative rules and its increasingly visible
expression in mass social justice movements. "Human dignity" is a fundamental human right
guaranteed by both the US Constitution and US and international human rights law.
Understanding the definition of "conditional prohibition" clarifies this (Feldman, 1999;
Hennette-Vauchez, 2011; Reaume, 2003).

Stigma, stereotype, discrimination and untouchability that individuals face for undertaking
scavenging work was reiterated in Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State
of Kerala and Ors. Manual scavengers were held to still stuffer disadvantage and social
exclusion based on ‘system of “purity and pollution”. Furthermore, “constitutional
prohibition of untouchability attempted at transformative and radical social transformation
‘moral re-affirmation of human dignity and of a society governed by equal entitlements’. The
constitutional scheme, therefore, acknowledges the ‘inalienable dignity of every individual’
through the fundamental right guarantee against social exclusion. This understanding
supports the main argument of the article—manual scavenging violates the right to human
dignity as the basic structure of the Indian Constitution as merely providing protective gears
and equipment do not guarantee protection against stigma, humiliation, untouchability and
indignity that individuals, as the constitutional focal point, suffer while engaged as manual
scavengers. Ambedkar’s struggle for the emancipation of Dalits and the fight against
untouchability also gave human dignity the utmost prominence in theory and his political
philosophy. The same is reflected in the drafting of the Indian Constitution which prohibits
untouchability and caste discrimination by emphasizing on rule of law with fundamental
rights as its central guiding principles. Therefore, no gas mask or protective gear can change
the undignified and humiliating experience of cleaning human excreta, entering sewage
potholes and gutters, an everyday job for a manual scavenger. Humiliation cannot be
accepted in lesser standards, nor any justifications of higher safety standards—lessen the
degree of humiliation and indignity—hold any ground in the rights discourse relevant to
human dignity, it is argued. Experience of anti-caste discrimination legislation and
constitutional provisions with formal rights structure has been that of failure in ending deep-
rooted systemic causes responsible for widespread caste discrimination, violence and

14
untouchability. A call for complete prohibition of manual scavenging is eminent and an
essential stepping stone towards eradicating the practice of manual scavenging. Though such
a step need not infer granting fundamental human rights powers they do not possess—of
bringing complete social change, they are only instrumental in the process. Equally so, its
role in empowering the anti-caste social justice movement in India, especially the one against
manual scavenging, by giving them the power to initiate social change, cannot be neglected.
Thus, it is argued that a complete prohibition of manual scavenging through the removal of
the conditions approach will be a good starting point to reimagine the prohibition and
rehabilitation debate. Such policy intervention must be matched with elevated efforts in
rehabilitation of manual scavengers, especially by focusing on enabling access to
rehabilitation schemes to the previously excluded sanitation workers not considered as
manual scavengers due to the legal exception: ‘complete rehabilitation’. However, until the
demand for municipal work persists, a complete prohibition will remain a legal relic where
ground realities will ensure continuous engagement of individuals for the job. Equally
pivotal, therefore, is to match complete prohibition and complete rehabilitation with complete
mechanization of sewer and manhole cleaning. Recent innovations in form of sewer cleaning
robots ‘Bandicoot’ and ‘Sewer Croc’, among others, are the type of innovation that must be
encouraged and further developed through direct government investment (Gandhi, 2018).
Technological advancement can help rapidly achieve complete mechanization of municipal
work which has to be complemented with serious infrastructure interventions in building
flush toilets and efficient sewage systems”.

Therefore, the government's policy must identify the limitations of the legal discourse as
outlined in this article and amend the apparent flaws in such discourse that seek to outlaw and
eradicate the practice of manual scavenging, on the one hand, and continue to allow the
practice of manual scavenging through a conditional approval based on definitional
exceptions, on the other. In particular, the policy must specify It is argued that no amount of
protective gear can ever make an indecent act such as manual scavenging justify the violation
of human dignity, and that the definitional discourse only serves to further entrench
antecedent disadvantages.

15