HC directive to govt on manual scavenging

Ahmedabad: Gujarat high court asked the state government to respond to the suggestion on whether the definition of ‘manual scavengers’ needed to be re-interpreted.
The state government is supposed to reply by April 21 to suggestions made by senior counsel Girish Patel to eradicate manual scavenging from the state. Even years after strict directions by the high court, the prohibited practice has prevailed in the state. There were a couple of public interest litigations (PIL) pending in this regard, but the court took suo motu cognizance of the issue in 2008 from a news article published in TOI showing that manual scavenging exists in Gujarat.
During the three-yearlong proceeding on this issue, the high court has directed the authorities to give proper compensation to those manhole workers, who lost their lives on job. However, senior counsel Patel, who has appeared in similar litigations earlier also, suggested to the court for correct interpretation of the definition. “It is not confined only to the practice of carrying human excreta on heads, but covers all cases of manual carrying or handling of human excreta,” said the lawyer proposing an alternate definition.
Besides demanding strict implementation of law and HC’s earlier orders, the lawyer said that the authorities entrusted to implement the law are not sufficiently sensitised. A proper training and orientation programme must be prepared for them. “Specific responsibility should be imposed upon specified officers, who should be held liable if any such practice is found out within his jurisdiction,” he has suggested.
The lawyer has demanded demolition of dry latrines in the state and psycho-social and livelihood rehabilitation for all manual scavengers and their families. For this, there should a high level monitoring committee, which must be broad-based so as to include officials, social workers, experts and representatives of the manual scavengers.
The state government sought time from the court to respond to these suggestions. The bench headed by chief justice has kept further proceeding on this issue on April 25.