High Court Affirms State Liability for Manual Scavenging Deaths in Private Properties
In the recent case of Sharda Maroti Chopwad & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that the State government is obligated to pay ₹30 lakh in compensation for deaths related to manual scavenging. Crucially, the court clarified that this financial responsibility holds true even if the deceased individuals were employed by private homeowners rather than public entities.
Key Legal Findings and Precedents
A division bench consisting of Justices Nitin Suryawanshi and Vaishali Patil-Jadhav anchored their decision on established Supreme Court precedents.
State Responsibility: Referencing the Vimla Govind Chorotiya case, the High Court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s directives (specifically from rulings like Safai Karamchari Andolan and Balram Singh) apply universally, regardless of whether the labor occurred in a public or private setting.
Right to Recovery: While the State must front the ₹30 lakh compensation to the victims’ families, the court noted that the government retains the right to recoup this expenditure from the private property owners who originally hired the workers.
Constitutional Reflections: Echoing the philosophies of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar regarding the “reclamation of human personality,” the bench remarked that the persistence of manual scavenging represents a constitutional failure to uphold the core principles of dignity, equality, and fraternity. They characterized the ongoing practice as a collective societal failure and a significant stain on a civilized nation.
Case Background
The ruling stemmed from a 2021 incident in the Nanded district, where two laborers tragically died from asphyxiation and drowning while cleaning a residential septic tank without protective equipment or official authorization. Following the tragedy:
A criminal case was filed against the homeowners under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR Act).
Although the property owner initially agreed to provide a financial settlement of ₹2.5 lakh per family (including funeral costs), the families only received a fraction of that amount.
In late 2023, the relatives petitioned the District Collector for ₹10 lakh each, pointing to the Supreme Court’s landmark Safai Karamchari Andolan judgment. When those funds were not disbursed, they took their grievances to the High Court.
The Arguments
The State of Maharashtra attempted to deflect financial liability by pointing to a 2019 government resolution, which argued that private employers—not the government—should bear the financial burden in private hiring scenarios.
The High Court rejected this defense, reaffirming that the state cannot bypass its ultimate financial accountability. Consequently, the State was ordered to pay the enhanced compensation of ₹30 lakh to each family.
Legal Representation:
For the Petitioners: Advocates Abha Singh and Avinash M. Reddy
For the State: Additional Government Pleader P.K. Lakhotiya
For the Homeowner: Advocate G.R. Ingole
