Justice evades ‘manual scavenging’ victims

A social organization has accused the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) of omitting sections of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation (PEMSR) Act, 2013, from FIRs related to the deaths of three sanitation workers last month. The organization, Jan Haq Sangharsh Samiti (JHSS), claimed that the workers were engaged in manual scavenging without proper safety gear, in violation of the law. Four contractors and supervisors have been arrested and charged, but without reference to the Manual Scavenging Act. JHSS argues that the Act would recognize the workers and their work and also bring into play the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the victims belong to the SC/ST community.

Mumbai: A social organisation has written to Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal and the city collector, claiming that sections under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation (PEMSR) Act, 2013, were missing from the FIRs in connection with the death of three sanitation workers in last month.

HT Image

Jan Haq Sangharsh Samiti (JHSS), which works on the issues related to sanitation workers, claimed that the workers were not provided safety gears and engaged in manual scavenging, which is prohibited.

The samiti also submitted the complaint to the engineer of the sewerage department and the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis (NCSK).

The three workers, Jagveer Yadav, 37, Ritik Kurkute, 22, and Ramkrishna, 25, and Sudhir Das, 30, were engaged in sanitation work in a single week between June 21 and 25.

In the first incident, Ramkrishna and Das were electrocuted while they were inside a nullah in Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, on June 25. HT reported about the deaths on June 25 and 26.

Four contractors and supervisors were arrested and charged under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code with no mention of the Manual Scavenging Act.

Moreover, the workers were bought from Bihar and forced to stay over and above their original plan to work in the city as their contractor had withheld their pay for three months.

“When the Manual Scavenging Act is added, the work and worker must be recognised. If the accused is tried against section 8 and 9 of the Manual Scavenging Act and the victim belongs to the SC/ST community, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, also comes into play. It validates the argument that the work of manual scavenging is based on caste,” Shubham Kothari of JHSS said.

Section 8 of the Act prescribes imprisonment up to one year or a fine of ₹50,000 or both for the first contravention, subsequent to which imprisonment may extend to two years or fine up to ₹1 lakh or both. Section 9 prescribes the punishment of employing or engaging a person in the hazardous cleaning of a sewer or septic tank with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to ₹2 lakh or both. The next offense will incur imprisonment of up to 5 years or fine of ₹5 lakh or both.

Additionally, the charge of culpable homicide has let the primary contractor, who arranged for the workers to come from Bihar, off the hook. “The Prevention of Atrocities Act would directly charge the principal employer and supervisors. But under the culpable homicide charge, he can say he was not on the site and did not have a hand in the death, and instead blame it on the negligence of supervisors present,” Shubham added.

“The Manual Scavenging Act recognises manual scavenging as a social problem/a larger systemic failure. But culpable homicide reduces it to an individual problem,” he said.

In the same vein, the ward officer would also stand to be responsible as it is the responsibility of the BMC to carry out sewerage work and it is the principal employer, even if it hires a private contractor. It would further mandate the government to give compensation of ₹10 lakh per victim and rehabilitate a sanitation worker with a different job.

The FIR in the death of Yadav follows the same pattern. Yadav was injured when a car hit him while cleaning a sewer in Kandivali on June 11. A video of the incident had gone viral on social media. He underwent a spinal surgery at Aastha Hospital at the expense of over ₹1.5 lakh by his roommate and friend. But he was discharged when his condition further deteriorated. After being refused admission at KEM and Sion Hospital due to the unavailability of ICU beds, he succumbed to injuries on June 21.

While the FIR mentioned Yadav cleaning the sewer in a manhole without any safety equipment, the police have imposed section 304 and 336 (act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the IPC on the contractor, Arjun Prasad Shukla, and Section 279 (rash driving) on the driver of the vehicle.

Shubham said, “The worker himself gave a statement before his death that he was engaged in manual scavenging.” According to him, both the accused are out on bail.

In a similar case, a worker, Ritik Kurkute, was electrocuted while cleaning a drain in Tisgaon, Kalyan on June 22. However, only an accidental death report (ADR) has been filed. The report mentioned that Kurkute happened to touch a metal sheet with electricity passing through it, leading to his death. His colleague was also injured while attempting to save him. The report does not mention the contractor in charge or compensation.

“As of now, the police do not feel that there is the need for an FIR. They were surprised by the mention of the Manual Scavenging Act,” said Nishant Bangera of Muse Foundation, who visited the Kolsewadi police station on Sunday to gather more details. As the police will be compelled to register an FIR on a complaint, the Muse Foundation is in talks with the victim’s friend and colleague, or will place the complaint themselves.