"A statement was made by the authorities concerned that there were no manual scavengers in Delhi. But the report of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) shows that there were 233 manual scavenger in the city," a bench of Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ashutosh Kumar said.
"This completely belies the statement made by the Delhi Jal Board, MCDs and other authorities concerned," it said, adding that "despite the rights that they (manual scavengers) have under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, their presence is indeed disgraceful for the city".
The bench also termed as "ridiculous and shocking", when it was informed by DSLSA's Member Secretary, Dharmesh Sharma, that one of the manual scavengers was a "graduate".
DSLSA submitted its report on the court's direction issued to it to verify the veracity of the statements of all agencies that there are no manual scavengers in the city.
The bench had given that direction so that legal assistance or aid can be given to persons, who may be identified as manual scavengers, to ensure their rights under the Act.
After perusing the report, the court pulled up the civic bodies and the jal board, asking the two bodies to file status report with regard to existence on such employees in the city.
(Reopens LGD12)
The court was annoyed with the agencies on DSLSA's report, which stated that they have interacted with more than 1000-odd workers of which 233 were identified as manual scavengers.
"Out of 233 identified manual scavengers, there are 104 government employees and 129 outsourced/provate contract workers. Among them, 11 of the workers belong to upper caste community," DSLSA said.
It said that permanent employees of MCD/DJB do not enter into deep pits and they have outsourced their job to private workers.
"MCD has not supplied any kind of equipment to its workers nor any kind of safety equipments are provided by the private contractors to those engaged on a daily basis.
The judge then asked the agencies why they have not given transportation facility.
"There is no facility to carry. They (workers) are not donkeys, who will carry the equipments on their back," the court said, adding that "it is not happy with the attitude of the civic bodies".
The bench was also told that workers lose their eyesight due to impact of the poisonous gases.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
