TEAM CODE: 30

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHAN AND OTHERS .... APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF BOMAI

SATHINAGAR MUNICIAL CORPORATION

… RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2010, ___/2012

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ........................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 8

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 13

ADVANCED ISSUE I .................................................................................................................. 13

1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? ...................................................................................................... 13

1.1 Lack of Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution .............................. 14

1.2 Locus standi; the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. ............... 16

ADVANCED ISSUE II ................................................................................................................ 19

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. .............................................................................................................. 19

2.1 There was no breach of Fundamental Rights in the present matter. .............................. 19

2.1.1 Rahul was a Sanitation Worker and not a Manual Scavenger. ............................... 19

2.1.2 Rahul’s death was the Consequence of his Personal Negligence. .......................... 21

2.1.3 There is no contention regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights.................. 22

2.1.4 India has adhered to the UDHR Guidelines. ........................................................... 23

3 WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF

1|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE RIGHTS OF

SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION UNDER
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW? ........................................................................... 24

3.1 Consonance of Indiana laws with UDHR provisions for safeguarding the rights of
sanitation workers. .................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Steps taken by Indiana Government to Protect Sanitation workers and to fulfill the
obligation Under Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): ....................................... 26

3.3 Collaborative efforts of Central And state Government of Indiana in upholding the
rights of sanitation workers. ...................................................................................................... 30

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 32

2|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

S.No. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

1.
& And

2.
AIR All India Reporter

3.
Anr Another

4.
Art Article

5.
et. Al And others

6.
FIR First Information Report

7.
HC High Court

3|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

8.
Hon’ble Honourable

9.
No. Number

10. Prohibition of Employment As

PEMSR Act Manual Scavenger And Their
Rehabilitation Act
11.
Ors. Others

12.
SC Supreme Court

13.
SCC Supreme Court Cases

14.
SCR Supreme Court Reporter

15.
UOI Union Of India

16.
v/s Verses

17.
u/s Under Section

4|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

SUPREME COURT CASES

Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 .............................. 19
Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal &Ors AIR 2013 SC 3325 ........................................... 19
LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811....................................... 19
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC597................................................................... 19
Ramakrishnan Mission and anr. v Kago Kunya and ors AIR 2018 SC 5570 ............................... 17
Ramesh Prasad Patel vs Union Of India (W.P. (S) No. 4841 of 2008) ........................................ 15
Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav, 1996 AIR 1340 ............................. 15

HIGH COURT CASES

Sheo Govind Singh vs Inspector General Of Police 2005(4)ESC 2720 ....................................... 19

Union of India v. T.R. Verma 1957 AIR 882 ............................................................................... 16
Veerappa v Raman 1952 AIR 192 ................................................................................................ 16

GOVERNMENT REPORTS

Department of Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Government of India Annual Report 2020-21 .......................................................................... 25
India. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Instructions Manual, February, 2013 pp. 19-

STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
3. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 1993

5|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

4. The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)

Act, 1993
5. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Rules,
2013

INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

1. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

2. The Covenant On Civil And Political Rights 1966
3. The Covenant On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights 1966

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8thEd, 2022)

2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (16th Ed, 2021)

3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (14thEd, 2023)

4. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 3rd Ed,2018)

LEGAL DATABASE

1. http://www.indiakanoon.com

2. http://www.scconline.com

3. http://www.casemine.com

4. https://www.scconline.com

6|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION

THE RESPONDENT HUMBLY SUBMITS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF STATE OF BOMAI, IN THE MATTER OF INDIANA KARAMCHARI
SAFAI ANDOLAN & ANRS VS STATE OF BOMAI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA. AGAINST THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS,
CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.

Article 226 in Constitution of Indiana

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose.

[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th Amendment]

7|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background:
• Indiana, a signatory to the UDHR, protects civil, economic, cultural, political, and social
rights.
• Human rights are safeguarded through fundamental rights in the constitution, which are
enforceable under Part III.
• Part IV of the constitution is persuasive, outlining directive principles.
• The government is obliged to defend human rights.
• Citizens can seek redressal from the Supreme Court for violations of fundamental rights
under Part III.
• The Supreme Court has the power to declare statutes unlawful if they contravene Part III.
• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, mandates the establishment of human rights
commissions and courts to uphold rights.
Pratyaksh's Death:
• Pratyaksh, aged 45, was a sanitation worker employed in Arvind Municipal Corporation
(AMC), Arvindnagar.
• In 2011, while performing his duties, he descended into a sewer without proper safety gear
and died due to asphyxiation caused by inhaling carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulphide, and
methane.
• The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as excessive inhalation of toxic gases.
• His family, unaware of the situation's gravity and fearing repercussions, did not pursue the
contractor for pending dues.
• Financial constraints forced Pratyaksh's wife to migrate back to their hometown,
Sathinagar.
Rahul's Death:
• In 2018, Pratyaksh's elder son, Rahul, aged 19, followed his father's footsteps and became
a sanitation worker in Sathinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC).

8|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• During the rainy season, Rahul was assigned to clear water-logging in Sathinagar without
proper safety equipment.
• While attempting to clear a blockage caused by human excreta, Rahul was swept away by
gushing water, leading to his death.
• His body, along with his co-worker's, was found in the Panna River after two days,
confirming the cause of death as asphyxia.
Legal Proceedings:
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and police concluded the deaths were due to
the workers' negligence.
• The session's court upheld this, absolving the municipal corporations of responsibility.
• This decision sparked widespread public outrage, leading to various protests and media
coverage.
NGO Intervention:
• Indiana Karamchari Safa iSangatan (IKSS), an NGO advocating for the rights of daily-
wage workers, filed a writ petition on behalf of Rahul and his family.
• The petition, under Article 226 of the High Court, questions the failure of Arvind and
Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to provide adequate safety measures for sanitation
workers.
• IKSS argues that this failure constitutes a violation of the workers' inherent rights
enshrined under Part III of the Indiana Constitution and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

9|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

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?

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION
UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?

10 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The Respondent argues that the NGO's writ petition is not maintainable on several grounds.
First, there was no violation of fundamental rights by the Municipal Corporation as the
deceased sanitation workers entered the drain themselves without following safety
protocols. Second, the NGO lacks locus standi to bring the petition on behalf of Rahul's
family. Third, the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative remedies available under the
Workmen's Compensation Act and the NHRC before approaching the High Court. Finally,
the Respondent contends that the petition does not satisfy the "twin test" for maintainability
under Article 226 as there was no violation of public law or civil rights.

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.

The Respondent, the Municipal Corporation, firmly denies any violation of Rahul's
fundamental rights. To support this claim, the Respondent relies on various legal judgments
and statutory provisions. First, the Respondent argues that Rahul wasn't classified as a
manual scavenger under the Act, and his sanitation duties didn't involve such hazardous
tasks. Second, the Respondent cites legal principles like 'volenti non fit injuria' (assuming
inherent risks) and 'subla fundamento cedit opus' (flawed foundation weakens the case) to
establish that Rahul's own actions, including entering the drain without safety gear, were
the primary cause of the tragedy. Finally, the Respondent acknowledges India's
commitment to UDHR principles but argues that due to the voluntary nature of Rahul's
actions, the UDHR doesn't hold the government liable in this case.

11 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING
THE RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES
ITS OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?

The Respondent argues that Indiana adheres to its obligations under domestic and
international law to protect sanitation workers. The UDHR principles of dignity, equality,
and fair working conditions align with Indian constitutional rights guaranteed to sanitation
workers. The Respondent details various legislative efforts like the Prohibition of
Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, to emphasize the
government's commitment to eradicating manual scavenging and rehabilitating affected
workers. Initiatives like the Swachh Bharat Mission and the Self-Employment Scheme for
Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers further demonstrate concrete actions taken to uplift
sanitation workers. The Respondent concludes that Indiana fulfills its international
commitments by prohibiting the practice and offering rehabilitation to those impacted.

12 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ADVANCED ISSUE I

1 WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
1. It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the writ petition filed by the NGO
Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan (IKSS) on behalf of Rahul and not his family and is hence not
maintainable. While the state acknowledges the tragic circumstances surrounding the deaths of
Rahul and his co-worker, it is imperative to address certain considerations on law point regarding
the petition's maintainability. Our position is based on an analysis of relevant legal principles,
including jurisdictional limitations, standing requirements, and the nature of the alleged violations.
Through this response, we aim to uphold the integrity of the legal process while ensuring that
justice is served in accordance with established procedures.
2. It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondent that it is the matter of fact that the
workers are employed by the Respondent No.2 Municipal corporation as sanitation workers for
cleaning- sweeping purposes and not for Manual scavenging which was prohibited under The
Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. This Act
aims to abolish the practice of manual scavenging and provide rehabilitation for manual
scavengers. It prohibits the engagement or employment of individuals as manual scavengers, the
construction of insanitary latrines, and the manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.
Additionally, the act mandates the identification and rehabilitation of manual scavengers,
including provisions for their alternative employment, skill development, financial assistance, and
other support measures. Overall, the act seeks to address the systemic issues surrounding manual
scavenging and uplift the affected individuals from this degrading occupation.
3. It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondent that also, this act under Section 2(1)(g)
explains that a person engaged or employed to clean a sewer with the help of such devices and
using protective gear shall not be deemed to be a “manual scavenger‟ and without any protective
gear is considered illegal.
4. The Respondent most humbly states that, in this case, it is contended and elucidated
through various reports, judgments, and factual accounts presented, that the state diligently

13 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

provides all necessary tools, including Personal Protection Kits (PPE), and maintains records of
sanitation workers' sanitation activities. However, it must be clarified that the unfortunate demise
of Rahul and his colleague Mahesh did not occur due to any negligence on the part of the State
Municipal Corporation in furnishing safety kits to sanitation workers. The State Municipal
Corporation never classified or employed them as manual scavengers, nor did it authorize or assign
them to enter suffocating drainage units devoid of protective gear. They were solely instructed to
address waterlogging on Lane 14, Shopprix Road, Sathinagar. It was their own oversight that they
ventured into the waterlogged unit without appropriate equipment to mitigate the adverse
conditions arising from the ongoing monsoon rains. Moreover, they failed to notify the Municipal
Corporation of their predicament, resulting in the tragic loss of both sanitation workers' lives..

1.1 Lack of Jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution

5. It is humbly submitted on behalf of the Respondent that lack of jurisdiction argument

posits that the petition filed under Article 226 of the High Court, aimed at addressing the tragic
deaths of Rahul and Mahesh, is not appropriate. Article 226 grants the court authority to issue writs
for the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, in this case, there is no indication of a
violation of fundamental rights by the state municipal corporation. The deaths of Rahul and
Mahesh resulted from their own negligence rather than any action or omission by the corporation.
They entered a suffocating drain unit without protective gear, a decision not mandated or
influenced by the municipal corporation. As such, the circumstances leading to their deaths do not
involve a breach of fundamental rights or any failure on the part of the corporation to fulfill its
duties. Therefore, the petition seeking relief under Article 226 lacks a valid basis for jurisdiction,
as it does not address an infringement of fundamental rights by the municipal corporation.
6. The Latin phrase "Subla Fundamento Cedit Opus", which will be later on discussed as to
show there is no such violation of Fundamental rights translates to "The foundation being removed,
the superstructure falls." In the scenario, the tragic deaths of sanitation workers Rahul and Mahesh
occurred due to their own negligence, as they entered a suffocating drain unit without protective
gear. Despite claims in the writ petition, there is no evidence to suggest that the state municipal
corporation was directly responsible for their deaths. The foundation of the case, therefore, lies in

14 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

the actions (or inaction) of Rahul and Mahesh themselves, rather than any fault on the part of the
corporation.
7. The Respondent relies on the ration laid down in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai1 “Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to
the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High
Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious
remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where
the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged....-

8. Furthermore the Respondent relies on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon2 - 43.
Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the
aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of
taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery
of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by
Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch
as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage
constitution of quasijudicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person.
Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute…
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of
compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the
petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and
the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.

1
(1998) 8 SCC 1
2
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110

15 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

9. The Respondent hence submits that the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases
underscores the discretionary power of the High Court in entertaining writ petitions under Article
226 of the Constitution. While acknowledging the court's discretion, these judgments emphasize
certain restrictions imposed upon it, particularly regarding the availability of an effective
alternative remedy. They elucidate that the High Court should ordinarily refrain from entertaining
petitions if such a remedy exists, especially in matters involving recovery of public dues or taxes.
The judgments underscore the comprehensive procedures and quasi-judicial bodies established by
legislations for redressing grievances, emphasizing the principle of exhausting alternative
remedies before seeking relief under Article 226. Additionally, they highlight that the rule of
exhaustion of alternative remedy is not compulsory but discretionary, urging the court to consider
the availability of such remedies and refrain from granting interim relief if effective alternatives
are accessible to the petitioner. Hence the present petition is not maintainable.

1.2 Locus standi; the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court.
State Liability:

10. The ratio laid down in State of Maharashtra vs. M.V. Dabholkar3whereby the definition
of “person aggrieved” is explained – a. The words `person aggrieved" are found in several statutes.
The meaning of the words "person aggrieved" will have to be ascertained with reference to the
purpose and the provisions of the statute. Some times, it is said that the words "person aggrieved"
correspond to the requirement of locus standi which arises in relation to judicial remedies The
meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the con text of the statute. One
of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been 'denied or
deprieved of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one "a person aggrieved".
Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words a
"person aggrieved" is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide
remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or
deprivation of legal rights.

3
1976 AIR 242

16 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

11. The Respondent relies upon the ration laid down in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan
Kumar4 disputes the locus of the petitioner i.e the NGO in the present case – 2. In the light of the
above discussion, it is demonstrably clear that the appellant has not been denied or deprived of a
legal right. He has not sustained injury to any legally protected interest. In fact, the impugned
order does not operate as a decision against him, much less does it wrongfully affect his title to
something. He has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He has suffered no legal grievance. He
'has no legal peg for' a justiciable claim to hang on. Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved' and
has no locus standi to challenge……….
12. .In such a case the legal maxim Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria
applies5. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offense cannot be
subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. Nor a person can claim any right arising out of his wrong
doing according to Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur6.
Alternative Remedy:

13. The Respondent most humbly submits that the provisions laid down in THE
EMPLOYMENT OF MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DRY LATRINES
(PROHIBITION) ACT, 1993 17. Provision in relation to jurisdiction.—(1) No court inferior to
that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence
under this Act. (2) No prosecution for any offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or
with the previous sanction of the Executive Authority. (3) No court shall take cognizance of any
offence under this Act except upon a complaint made by a person generally or specially authorised
in this behalf by the Executive Authority. 18. Limitation of prosecution.—No court shall take
cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof is made within
three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge
of the complainant.
14. The Respondent most humbly submits that the kin of the deceased has to approach the
mechanism established under the Workemen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and the MC Act, 2013.
The

4
1976 AIR 578
5
Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav, 1996 AIR 1340
6
Ramesh Prasad Patel vs Union Of India (W.P. (S) No. 4841 of 2008)

17 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

15. In Rahul's case, the petitioner's failure to exhaust all available legal avenues before
resorting to the court is evident. Given the seriousness of the allegations concerning potential
violations of fundamental rights, particularly regarding the right to life and dignity, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to pursue remedies through specialized forums such as the National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) before approaching the court. The NHRC serves as a
dedicated institution for addressing human rights violations, equipped with the expertise and
mandate to investigate such matters thoroughly. In the case of Veerappa v Raman7, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that if the right and liability is created by a statute and it prescribes a remedy
or procedure for enforcing, then the court may refuse to entertain the writ petition and direct the
petitioner to seek remedy under the statute only.
16. In the case of Union of India v. T.R. Verma8, the Supreme Court stated: "It is well settled
that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required
to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
prerogative writ.", which is further elaborated as "When such remedy exists, it will be a sound
exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226, unless there are good
grounds therefor"
17. By seeking redress through the NHRC initially, the petitioner could have ensured a more
focused and expedient resolution, tailored to the specifics of the case. Moreover, the NHRC's
interventions often involve comprehensive inquiries, including fact-finding missions and
recommendations for remedial action, which could have provided a more nuanced understanding
of the circumstances leading to Pratyaksh and Rahul's unfortunate deaths. By bypassing the NHRC
and directly approaching the court, the petitioner missed an opportunity for a more appropriate and
effective remedy, potentially prolonging the resolution process and diminishing the chances of a
satisfactory outcome for all parties involved. Therefore, the failure to engage with the NHRC
constitutes a significant lapse in the petitioner's pursuit of justice. And this mishap by the petitioner
should not be entertained in this Hon’ble Court as it being quoted in the case of Ramakrishnan
Mission and anr. v Kago Kunya and ors9., the Supreme Court established what is known as the
"twin test" for determining the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226. According to

7
Veerappa v Raman 1952 AIR 192
8
Union of India v. T.R. Verma 1957 AIR 882
9
Ramakrishnan Mission and anr. v Kago Kunya and ors AIR 2018 SC 5570

18 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

this test, two conditions must be satisfied: firstly, the entity or individual in question must be
performing a public function or responsibility, and secondly, the behavior being challenged must
involve a violation of public law. Therefore, unless the matter involves a violation of public law,
a writ petition cannot be sustained against an authority or individual under Article 226 for carrying
out a public function or obligation. And here, no violation of Public law or no civil rights have
been violated by the state but the negligence in the part of Rahul and Mahesh leads to the mis-
happening.

ADVANCED ISSUE II

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.

2.1 There was no breach of Fundamental Rights in the present matter.

18. Rahul’s actions were not aligned with the responsibilities outlined in his job profile. Rahul's
role as a sanitation worker did not comprise of entering hazardous environments without proper
safety equipment. Therefore, his decision to enter the water-logged unit without adequate
precautions cannot be attributed to any failure on the part of the municipal corporation to uphold
his fundamental rights [2.1.1 and 2.1.2]. The essence of fundamental rights lies in the protection
and promotion of individuals' freedoms and liberties within the bounds of their lawful duties
[2.1.3]. In this instance, Rahul's actions deviated from the parameters of his job description,
thereby absolving the municipal corporation of any responsibility for breaching his fundamental
rights.

2.1.1 Rahul was a Sanitation Worker and not a Manual Scavenger.

19. Rahul was employed as a Full-time Sanitation Worker in the Sathinagar Municipal
Corporation10. Now, as per the Instruction released by The Government of India Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, on February 2013 –

10
Moot Problem.

19 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

“Sanitation workers or Safai Karmacharies are normally include persons engaged as ‘Sweepers’
or ‘sanitation/cleaning workers’ in municipalities, government and private offices. They may be
direct employees of these bodies (municipalities, government/private sector organizations) or may
be contract employees who happen to be working for these organizations. However, Safai
Karamcharis, per se, are not manual scavengers”11.
20. “Manual scavenger” means a person engaged or employed, at the commencement of this
Act or at any time thereafter, by an individual or a local authority or an agency or a contractor, for
manually cleaning, carrying, disposing of, or otherwise handling in any manner, human excreta in
an insanitary latrine or in an open drain or pit into which the human excreta from the insanitary
latrines is disposed of, or on a railway track or in such other spaces or premises, as the Central
Government or a State Government may notify, before the excreta fully decomposes 12
21. In the present matter Rahul was a sanitation working under the Sathinagar Municipal
Corporation, he was not a Manual Scavengers. Rahul was instructed to clean the road at Lane 14,
Shoppex Road, he voluntarily entered the drain unit to clear water-logging. His actions were not
mandated by his job responsibilities. Therefore, the municipal corporation cannot be held liable
for his actions.
22. It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the Respondent that per the provisions of the
Act, identification of manual scavengers is the responsibility of local authority i.e. Chief Executive
Officer of the Municipality/Municipal Corporation in Urban areas and Gram Panchayat in rural
areas. In order to expedite the process of identification of manual scavengers, the States have
provided the data of manual scavengers through 20 points check list in rural and urban areas to
facilitates identification of all the persons engaged in manual scavenging in accordance with the
definition of manual scavenging stipulated in the Act.
23. The Respondent further relies on Supreme Court Judgement dated 27.3.2014 in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 583 of 2003 in Safai Karamchari Andolan & Ors Vs. Union of India. The
Supreme Court, in the above Writ Petition has, inter-alia, directed as under: - “Identify the families
of all persons who have died in sewerage work (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 and award
compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for each such death to the family members depending on them. Hence
the identification of the same has to be done necessarily.

11
India. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Instructions Manual, February, 2013 pp. 19-20
12
The Prohibition Of Employment As Manual Scavengers And Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

20 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (The
Act) outlines a two-pronged approach: eradicating manual scavenging and rehabilitating those
affected.-

Eradicating Manual Scavenging:

• Surveys: Local authorities (municipalities, panchayats etc.) are mandated to conduct
surveys to identify insanitary latrines and people engaged in manual scavenging
[Section 4]. These surveys should be carried out by trained personnel [Section 11(1)].
• Demolition or Conversion of Insanitary Latrines: The Act prohibits the construction
of new insanitary latrines [Section 5(1)]. Existing ones must be demolished or
converted into sanitary latrines within a specified timeframe by the occupier at their
own expense [Section 5(2)].
• Prohibition of Employment: The Act makes it illegal to employ or engage anyone,
directly or indirectly, for manual scavenging [Section 5(1)(b)]. This applies to both
full-time and part-time work.
Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers:
• Identification: As mentioned earlier, surveys play a key role. Additionally, individuals
can self-declare as manual scavengers to the local authority [Section 21].
• Rehabilitation Measures: The Act mandates rehabilitation for identified manual
scavengers and their families [Section 16]. This can include providing alternative
dignified livelihood options, skill development training, and financial assistance.
• Compensation for Sewer/Septic Tank Deaths: In case of fatalities during hazardous
cleaning of sewers or septic tanks, the Act mandates compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to
the families of the deceased [mentioned in rules, not the Act itself].

2.1.2 Rahul’s death was the Consequence of his Personal Negligence.

24. As mentioned before Mr. Rahul had undertaken actions exceeding the scope of his
employment duties. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that Mr. Rahul entered the drain unit without
the necessary safety measures in place. While standard safety equipment may have been provided
for his role as a sanitation worker, their effectiveness in the context of the drain unit would need
to be carefully evaluated.

21 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

25. According to the legal principle of volenti non-fit injuria, a willing person cannot claim
injury from a known risk to which they have voluntarily exposed themselves. Rahul willingly
entered the drain, thereby assuming the risks associated with such an action. As a result, he cannot
later claim injury or wrongfulness due to those risks. It was held in the in Ashok Kapil vs Sana
Ullah [Dead] And Others case that – "Nullus commodum copere potest de injuria sua propria"
(No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity Hence, in the
normal course, petitioner cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of his
own wrong13. Hence in the present case Rahul cannot seek assistance or relief from a court of law
for the consequences of his actions as Rahul's voluntary and unlawful entry into the drain
constitutes his own wrongdoing, absolving the Municipal Corporation of liability under this
principle.
26. More so, if initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of a party
cannot sanctify the same. Subla Fundamento cedit opus"- a foundation being removed, the
superstructure falls. A person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong14. Nor
a person can claim any right arising out of his wrong doing. (Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur) 15. The
principle asserts that if the foundation or basis of an action is flawed, the entire action becomes
invalid. In this case, Rahul's initial action of entering the drain unlawfully is the foundation upon
which subsequent events unfold. Hence it is evident that Rahul and Mahesh’s actions absolve the
municipal corporations of liability.

2.1.3 There is no contention regarding the violation of Fundamental Rights.

27. In the present case, there has been no violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. To
establish of the violation Article 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test of Article 14
and test of reasonableness under Article 1916. Article 14 ensures fairness and guarantees against
arbitrariness17. It provides that every action of the government must be informed by reasons and
guided by public interest18.

13
Ashok Kapil vs Sana Ullah [Dead] And Others
14
Devendra Kumar vs State Of Uttaranchal &Ors AIR 2013 SC 3325
15
Sheo Govind Singh vs Inspector General Of Police 2005(4)ESC 2720
16
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC597
17
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101
18
LIC v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, AIR 1995 SC 1811

22 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

28. In Rahul's case, his decision to enter the drain was entirely voluntary and not influenced
by any government action or policy. Thus, that there is no legal basis for invoking Article 14 of
the Constitution, which requires governmental actions to be fair, non-arbitrary, and in the public
interest. Since Rahul's actions were not subject to government control or intervention, Article 14
are cannot be made applicable. Since, his entry into the drain was not a restriction imposed by the
government but rather a voluntary action, there is no need to assess its reasonableness under Article
19.
29. Thus now, it can be firmly established that Rahul's tragic demise does not constitute a
violation of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. Since his actions were
voluntary and out of government control/regulation hence are not subject to the tests of equality
and reasonableness under Articles 14 and 19, respectively, there is no legal basis to argue that his
rights under Article 21 were infringed upon.

2.1.4 India has adhered to the UDHR Guidelines.

30. The UDHR, while a guiding international standard, is not directly enforceable in the same
manner as domestic law. However, India, as a signatory to the UDHR, is committed to upholding
its principles. In Rahul's case, the absence of state involvement in his voluntary action absolves
the government of responsibility for violating UDHR principles. Furthermore, Rahul's decision,
while tragic, falls outside the scope of government regulation, and thus cannot be attributed to any
state-sanctioned infringement of his rights under the UDHR.
31. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) serves as a significant international
benchmark for human rights standards, However, it does not create a binding effect. Despite this,
India, as a signatory to the UDHR, is dedicated to upholding its principles as part of its
commitment to international human rights norms. In the case of Rahul, the absence of direct state
involvement in his voluntary action relieves the government from direct responsibility for any
potential violation of UDHR principles. Moreover, Rahul's decision, although tragic, falls outside
the purview of government regulation.
32. India's adherence to the UDHR's principles, which is later on be discussed in the next issue,
reflects its broader commitment to promoting and safeguarding human rights on an international
scale.

23 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

ADVANCED ISSUE III

3 WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?
33. Indiana is a signatory to the UDHR. It is a fact that the Indiana constitution was greatly
influenced by the UDHR. Provisions of UDHR that prohibits manual Scavenging: Article 1 of
UDHR states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity andrights. The article 5 states
that no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. Article22 includes theright to
work,an adequate standard of living and social security. Under Article23, right to just and
favorable conditions of work are provided.

3.1 Consonance of Indiana laws with UDHR provisions for safeguarding the rights of
sanitation workers.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
34. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that "All human
beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." This principle is in consonance with the
Indian Constitution in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers by ensuring equal protection
under the law and prohibiting discrimination based on factors such as caste, religion, or social
status.
35. In the context of sanitation workers in India, who often belong to marginalized
communities, the Indian Constitution upholds their right to equality and dignity. The Constitution
prohibits discrimination and guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to
life and personal liberty (Article 21), the right to equality (Article 14), and the abolition of
untouchability (Article 17). By recognizing the inherent dignity and equality of all individuals,
Article 1 of the UDHR aligns with the Indian Constitution's commitment to protecting the rights
of sanitation workers and ensuring their fair treatment and access to opportunities without
discrimination.

24 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

36. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) prohibits torture and
cruel treatment. This principle resonates with the Indian Constitution's protection of sanitation
workers' rights. The Indian Constitution extends protection to all individuals, encompassing
sanitation workers, safeguarding them from inhumane treatment. Specifically, Article 21
guarantees the right to dignity, broadly interpreted to encompass the entitlement to a dignified
workplace for sanitation workers. Additionally, under Article 42, the state bears the responsibility
of ensuring the health and safety of all workers, including those in sanitation roles, emphasizing
the importance of safe working conditions. Furthermore, Article 14 ensures equal protection under
the law, preventing discrimination against sanitation workers and ensuring they receive equitable
treatment. Together, these constitutional provisions underscore the commitment to upholding the
rights and well-being of sanitation workers, emphasizing their dignity, safety, and fair treatment
within society.
37. Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) resonates with the
principles of the Indian Constitution in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers. In accordance
with this, sanitation workers are entitled to social security, as highlighted in the UDHR. This aligns
with the Indian Constitution's emphasis on providing public assistance to ensure the welfare of all
citizens, including sanitation workers. Additionally, both documents recognize the importance of
economic, social, and cultural rights for human dignity and development. In India, these rights are
enshrined in various provisions of the Constitution, such as Article 38, which directs the state to
promote the welfare of the people. Moreover, Article 22 of the UDHR underscores the right to
dignity and free development, which is protected by the Indian Constitution's provisions like
Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, both documents
emphasize the state's obligation to safeguard the rights and well-being of sanitation workers,
ensuring their dignity, safety, and welfare.
38. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Indian Constitution are
in harmony in safeguarding the rights of sanitation workers. Both assert the fundamental right to
work under fair and just conditions, ensuring dignified employment and protection against
exploitation. This provision underscores the importance of creating an environment where all
individuals, including sanitation workers, can engage in gainful employment without facing
discrimination or degrading conditions. Additionally, it emphasizes the obligation of the state to
ensure adequate safeguards to protect workers from unemployment and to promote their well-

25 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

being through appropriate labor laws and social policies. In essence, these legal frameworks aim
to uphold the dignity and rights of sanitation workers, recognizing their vital role in society and
advocating for their fair treatment and protection in the workplace.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
39. Article 11 emphasizes the obligation of states to take measures to prevent occupational
hazards and ensure the health and safety of workers, including sanitation workers. This includes
providing training, resources, and support to enable sanitation workers to carry out their duties
effectively while minimizing risks to their health and safety. Article 8 of ICCPR provides the right
to not be enslaved and Article 26 confers the right to equality before law. In a country like Indiana,
manual scavenging was considered to be the work of a certain community of people. According
to the Government data, 97% of manual scavengers are Dalits. However, in the recent decades, the
government through its continues efforts has brought in stringent provisions that are intolerant
towards manual Scavenging in any form.

3.2 Steps taken by Indiana Government to Protect Sanitation workers and to fulfill the
obligation Under Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
40. Elimination of insanitary latrines and manual scavenging as well as rehabilitation of
manual scavengers in alternative occupations, have been areas of high priority of the Government.
Key legislative measures include laws prohibiting manual scavenging and mandating
rehabilitation, such as the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Rehabilitation programs offer training and support for alternative
employment. Awareness campaigns aim to change societal attitudes. Technological solutions, like
mechanized equipment, are promoted, and monitoring ensures enforcement of laws. Overall, these
efforts seek to eradicate harmful practices while empowering affected individuals.
(i) The implementation of the "Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Act, 2013" signifies the prohibition of the dehumanizing act of manual
scavenging. This law not only bans manual scavenging but also focuses on the
rehabilitation of those involved in such activities. In essence, it seeks to eradicate the
inhumane practice of manual scavenging while simultaneously addressing the welfare and
rehabilitation needs of individuals previously engaged in this occupation.
(ii) In efforts to combat the inhumane practice of manual scavenging, the government has
undertaken substantial measures under the Swachh Bharat Mission. Since October 2, 2014,

26 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

over 10.88 crore sanitary toilets have been constructed in rural areas and 62.64 lakh in
urban areas19. Additionally, insanitary toilets have been converted into sanitary ones. These
actions demonstrate the government's commitment to not only enacting the 2013 Act but
also ensuring that it fulfills its constitutional mandate20.
(iii) Following the enactment of the Act, the Self-Employment Scheme for
Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS) underwent revision in November 2013 to
align with the Act's provisions as follows21:
a. One-time cash assistance of Rs. 40,000 provided to each identified manual scavenger
within the family.
b. Back-end capital subsidy of up to Rs. 3.25 lakh offered to identified manual scavengers
and their dependents for self-employment projects, with a ceiling of Rs. 10.00 lakh (or Rs.
15.00 lakh for sanitation-related projects).
c. Skill development training provided for up to two years to identified manual scavengers
and their dependents, with a stipend of Rs. 3,000 per month during the training period.
(iv) At the behest of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, two surveys were
conducted in 2013 and 2018 to identify manual scavengers22. These surveys aimed to
ascertain the number of individuals engaged in manual scavenging across the country.
Based on the findings of these surveys, a total of 58,098 eligible manual scavengers were
identified. These individuals were then provided with the one-time cash assistance of Rs.
40,000 each, as stipulated by the government's rehabilitation program. This initiative
demonstrates the government's commitment to addressing the issue of manual scavenging
and providing support to those affected by it.
(v) If a municipality or panchayat fails to identify a manual scavenger, Section 12 of the Act
outlines the procedure for manual scavengers to self-identify and access government-
provided rehabilitation. It states that any individual working as a manual scavenger in an
urban area can apply to the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality, or an authorized
officer, to be recognized as a manual scavenger. This application can be made during the

19
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1794770
20
Ibid
21
Ibid
22
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment Government of
India Annual Report 2020-21

27 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

municipality's survey or at any time thereafter, as per the prescribed procedure.

(vi) Rehabilitation measures include providing scholarships for the children of manual
scavengers, offering a residential plot or financial aid for constructing a house, or providing
a ready-built house with financial assistance. Additionally, training in livelihood skills is
offered to either the manual scavenger or any willing family member, accompanied by a
monthly stipend of at least three thousand rupees during the training period. Subsidies and
concessional loans are also available for transitioning to alternative sustainable
occupations. Furthermore, legal and programmatic assistance will be provided as needed.

41. Similar measures are extended to panchayats, showcasing the government's commitment
to eradicating this injustice from grassroots levels of society and governance, while also uplifting
those affected by this inhumane practice. Consequently, the government stands ready to serve the
public, yet it also necessitates the cooperation of the people. This unfortunate incident, which could
have been prevented, highlights the importance of manual scavengers seeking assistance from their
local municipality. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation
Act, 2013 (the Act) includes several provisions for rehabilitation alongside its focus on banning
the practice (Section 3)

Survey and Eradication of Insanitary Latrines (Section 4):

• Local authorities are required to identify and eliminate insanitary latrines, which
contribute to manual scavenging.
• This involves replacing them with sanitary toilets that don't require manual cleaning.
Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers and their Families (Sections 14-16):
• The Act mandates that manual scavengers and their families be identified for
rehabilitation programs.
• These programs aim to provide them with alternative employment and income
generation opportunities.
• The Act mentions skill development, loans, and subsidies to help them transition to
new work.
Education for Children of Manual Scavengers (Section 17):

28 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• The Act focuses on ensuring children from manual scavenger families receive
education.
• This includes financial assistance for their schooling.
Role of the Central and State Governments (Sections 18-20):
• The Act assigns responsibility to both the central and state governments for
implementing its provisions.
• This involves creating a National Manual Scavenger Rehabilitation Fund and State
Manual Scavenger Rehabilitation Funds for financial assistance.
Penalties for Offences (Sections 8 & 9):
• The Act outlines punishments for employing someone for manual scavenging or
engaging in hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.

Overall, the Act establishes a framework for rehabilitation alongside its goal of eradicating
manual scavenging. It aims to break the cycle of poverty and caste-based discrimination
associated with this practice.

IDENTIFICATION PROCESS

Act Sections
• Section 2(g): Defines "manual scavenger" as a person engaged in or employed for manually
cleaning, carrying, disposing of, or handling human excreta from insanitary latrines or
sewers.
• Section 4: Mandates surveys by local authorities to identify manual scavengers and
insanitary latrines.
• Section 11(1): Requires trained personnel to conduct these surveys.
Potential Parameters (not defined in the Act)
• Activities: Does the person clean, carry, dispose of, or handle human excreta from
insanitary latrines, open drains, or sewers? ( Aligns with Section 2(g) definition)
• Location: Does the work occur in insanitary latrines or sewers, which lack proper
mechanized cleaning systems?

29 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

• Equipment: Does the person use basic, manual tools like buckets or baskets for cleaning
instead of mechanized equipment?
• Safety Measures: Does the person lack proper protective gear like gloves, masks, or boots
while working?
• Social Stigma: Does the community associate the person with manual scavenging, a
historically marginalized occupation?
Additional Considerations:
• Self-Identification: The Act allows individuals to self-declare as manual scavengers during

• surveys or apply later to the designated local authority for inclusion in the list (

3.3 Collaborative efforts of Central And state Government of Indiana in upholding the
rights of sanitation workers.
42. The collaboration between the state and central governments of Indiana to eradicate manual
scavenging is aligned with their obligations under both domestic and international law, ensuring
that it does not violate fundamental rights.
a. The Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS), initiated
by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, is designed to transition manual
scavengers and their dependents into alternative occupations within a specified timeframe.
b. In 2014, the Supreme Court issued an order mandating the government to identify
individuals who lost their lives in sewage work since 1993 and provide Rs. 10 lakh
compensation to their families.
c. The National Commission for Safai Karmacharis (NCSK) was established under the
National Commission for Safai Karamcharis Act, 1993, with the primary objective of
advocating for and protecting the rights of SafaiKaramcharis.
d. The Swachh Indiana Mission has facilitated the construction of toilets equipped with on-
site sanitation systems such as septic tanks and pits.
43. The collaborative efforts of both the state and central governments of Indiana demonstrate
a concerted commitment to addressing the deeply ingrained issue of manual scavenging. By
adhering to constitutional mandates, enacting relevant legislation, and fulfilling international
obligations, these governments are striving to uphold the fundamental rights and dignity of all

30 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

individuals. Through coordinated initiatives aimed at eradication, rehabilitation, and awareness-

raising, they are working towards a future where manual scavenging is no longer a reality, ensuring
that every person can live and work with dignity and equality under the law.
44. Hence, the Government of Indiana on all accounts, comply with its International
Commitments in giving protection and rehabilitation of sanitation workers and their dependents,
since the practice has been prohibited in Indiana.

31 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T
 4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That, the writ petition filed by the Indiana Karamchari Safai Sanghatan (IKSS) is not
maintainable before the High Court of Bomai may kindly be dismissed

2. Remand the matter back to the Local Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation for identification
and scrutiny of the death

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, for this the
Respondent shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

32 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E R E S P O N D E N T