Supreme Court Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Cost On Delhi PWD For Manual Sewer Cleaning Outside SC's Gate

The Supreme Court today(September 18) imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on the officials of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Delhi Government for engaging manual sewer cleaners for drainage cleaning at the very gate (Gate F) outside the Supreme Court itself, in violation of the Court's judgment prohibiting manual sewer cleaning.

The Court noted that the PWD had not only engaged labourers without the safety gears but also engaged a minor for this work. If the violations are repeated, the Court warned that FIR will be registered against the concerned officials.

The cost has to be deposited with the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis within four weeks.

In August, the Court, taking note of the manual sewer cleaning work being done right under its nose in violation of its judgment, sought a reply from PWD.

Today, a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria went through the reply filed. The Court was informed by Senior Advocate K Parameshwar,  the amicus curiae in the matter, that some liability needs to be imposed because the directions passed by the Court in 2023 have clearly been violated.

"The specific people who were forced, including the minor, the name and address were given. Kindly see. The minor was engaged, and it's specifically recorded in the video given in the pendrive. It is not as if no details were provided to them. The police complaint was sought to be registered in Tilak Magar police station. One authority has to act, the police does not act, the PWD does not act. They did not want to issue a show-cause notice. This is not just a violation of the labour law. They say,  they issued a letter but that letter was not even a show cause, and o they replied said nothing wrong, we have provided all gears, and there is no question of minor being involved. Let the fine be recovered from the officers, let them say why the obligations are not enforced," Parameshwar submitted.

The Government responded that this was a "desilting work" in open drains where there are no poisonous gases involved. Amicus responded that he is surprised by the Government's stand of defending the practice. 

In Dr Balram's petition, the Court has passed various directions from time to time for the eradication of manual scavening and sewer cleaning. The first set of directions was passed in October 2023, and then in January, this year, in terms of monitoring the eradication of this practice from the top metropolitan cities. As per the October 2023 directions relevant to this case, the Court directed:

"(6) The appropriate government (i.e., the Union, State or Union Territories) shall devise a suitable mechanism to ensure accountability, especially wherever sewer deaths occur in the course of contractual or “outsourced” work. This accountability shall be in the form of cancellation of contract, forthwith, and imposition of monetary liability, aimed at deterring the practice.

(7) The Union shall device a model contract, to be used wherever contracts are to be awarded, by it or its agencies and corporations, in the concerned enactment, such as the Contract Labour (Prohibition and Regulation Act), 1970, or any other law, which mandates the standards – in conformity with the 2013 Act, and rules, are strictly followed, and in the event of any mishap, the agency would lose its contract, and possibly blacklisting. This model shall also be used by all States and Union Territories."

Later, an the intervention application was filed by Akshay Lodhi (Advocate) represented by Mr. Pawan Reley, AOR pointing out violations in five areas: Mayur Vihar Phase I, Supreme Court gate no F, V3S Mall Preet Vihar, Bhajanpura, Seelampur and Shashi Park.

The Court passed the following order today :

"This application filed seeking for the following directions.... Chief Engineer, PWD, GNCTD, having been notified, filed a statement of objection as a reply to the said application.

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we deem it apt and appropriate to extract directions dated 20.10.23, which have relevance to the consideration of the present application.

The learned counsel for PWD contends that it is only desilting in the covered drainages which are being cleaned for the purpose of keeping in mind the ensuing monsoon, and as such, there is no fault of the officials. She would also further contend that, notwithstanding the same, the communication has been issued to contractor(s) to take corrective steps by communications dated 17.5.25, 17.8.2025, and 21.8.2025. It is also stated by PWD that labourers were not engaged for the desilting of open drain and did not indulge in manual scavening and as such provisions of the 2013 Act are not attracted. 

But in respect of the incident at Gate F and B of the Supreme Court of India, the drains have been constructed, and for desilting the said drain, the PWD has engaged the services of contractors who are said to have acquired labourers without safety gears. There is no doubt that the agreement entered into by the contractor with the PWD would mandate that the contractor should provide safety gears and prohibit the engagement of labourers under 18.

The orders issued by this court by order 20.10.2023 seem not to have percolated, in other words, have been consciously ignored. We have said this for reasons more than one. Firstly, the affidavit in reply filed by PWD does not disclose that there have been serious steps taken either to warn the contractors for undertaking ,or having undertaken the work, or entrusting the work without the use of protective gears. Secondly, having accepted such entrustment of work, no steps have been taken either to put the contractor under notice or to issue any notice for blacklisting.

This clearly indicates that the officials seem to be dragging their feet. However, the communications referred to herein, supra, would suggest some steps have been taken which do not by themselves inspire confidence to accept the stand of the PWD as steps taken by reasonable or prudent employer. In fact, we had made it explicitly clear that in the event of an untoward incident, this Court would direct registration of FIR against the concerned officials. At this stage, we detest from doing so for a simple reason that no incident has occurred and to ensure that neither the officals nor the contractor appointed by them allow the worker to enter the drain or softwater drain or sewer without protective gear. It would be reasonable to impose cost for having undertaken such work as evidenced from the photographs annexed with this application. Hence, we direct PWD to deposit the sum of Rs 5 Lac to the National Commission for Safai Karmacharis within four weeks.

Not only PWD but other officials need to wake up from slumber to ensure directions are complied with in letter and spirit. We make it clear that in the event of recurring, this Court would be compelled to direct registration of FIR under BNS and BNSS." 

Case Details:  DR. BALRAM SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(C) No. 324/2020 

Click Here To Read/Download Order