No abstract

In this article, we argue that manual scavenging and the 2013 Act which prohibits it are unconstitutional as they violate human dignity, the prohibition against untouchability, and the right to life enshrined in the Constitution of India. We bring out contradictions and limitations in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on manual scavenging and show that it misses out on deploying its own strong anti-untouchability and human dignity-based jurisprudence in the judicial treatment of manual scavenging. This progressive jurisprudence outlaws all forms of social exclusion and does not allow for any exceptions to the right to human dignity. We then propose a framework which outlines the unconstitutionality of the very practice of manual scavenging through an in-depth and conjoint analysis of the Indian constitutional jurisprudence on prohibition untouchability, right to human dignity and right to life. A conjoint reading of the three principles brings out the real potential of the Indian Constitution in safeguarding the rights of manual scavengers, a feat which must begin with a complete abolition of all forms of scavenging work without exception. Arguing against the acceptability of allegedly “safe” sanitation work, we propose an alternative framework to understand and critique manual scavenging, without which a complete eradication of manual scavenging is impossible.

No abstract

Sanitation work in India is largely carried out by the historically marginalized Dalits, formerly known as untouchables, without proper devices or safety gear, as so-called ‘manual scavenging’. To counter manual scavenging, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have turned to courts and litigation as a form of resistance. This brought about some successes: manual scavenging was repeatedly outlawed, and several high-profile court cases have ordered local governments to take very explicit steps to eradicate it. However, manual scavenging persists rampantly, leading several authors to argue that litigation has failed in its purpose. We critically evaluate this claim by examining the underlying root question: what purpose do NGOs ascribe to litigation in their efforts to eradicate manual scavenging in the first place? Our analysis is based on a multi-method, qualitative research approach combining analysis of documents of, and interviews with, a total of 23 NGOs. Using the lens of active citizenship, we conclude that NGOs seek to shift responsibility to the government, of which it has absolved itself under neoliberalism, remind the government of its duty to serve its citizens, and overall participate politically. Specific features of courts, such as mandamus and a mediation-oriented approach, were mentioned as uniquely enabling petitioners to exercise active citizenship and force government officials to at least consider manual scavengers’ interests.

After its ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the Indian government proceeded to work through a list of laws from various fields – employment, housing, healthcare, personal status – that would need to be amended to guarantee the rights in the UNCRPD. Regarding the healthcare of persons with mental illness, the law-drafters deemed it insufficient to merely amend the existing law and proceeded to draft a new, innovative mental healthcare law. When the Mental Healthcare Act (MHA) was passed in 2017, responses were strongly polarised: On the one hand, it was lauded for staying true to the vision of the UNCRPD (Duffy & Kelly, 2019), while on the other hand, especially psychiatrists heavily criticised that they anticipated the law would adversely affect their ability to treat patients