Supreme Court of India
DELHI JAL BOARDversusNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF SEWERAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS & OTHERS
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 486
- Decided
- 12 July 2011
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The High Court was justified in entertaining the PIL and issuing safety and compensation directions, which do not constitute legislative usurpation, and the Supreme Court upheld those directions.
Summary
The National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers filed a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court seeking safety measures and compensation for sewage workers who died in hazardous conditions. The High Court issued interim directions ordering the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) to provide protective equipment, medical care, and to pay compensation to the victims' families. DJB appealed, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and usurped the State's legislative power. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in entertaining the PIL and that its directions merely ensured implementation of existing constitutional obligations, not legislative overreach. It affirmed the compensation award, directing DJB to pay Rs.3.29 lakhs to one victim’s family (in addition to amounts already paid) and to comply with the safety directives, while dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Delhi High Court was justified in entertaining the public interest litigation and directing the DJB to take safety measures and pay compensation to sewage workers' families.
- Whether the High Court's directions amounted to an usurpation of the State's legislative power.
- Whether the High Court was entitled to issue interim directions for payment of compensation to the families of deceased workers.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 141, s. Article 142, s. Article 144, s. Article 21, s. Article 226, s. Article 32, s. Article 38, s. Article 39, s. Article 39A, s. Article 42
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
Subjects
public interest litigationoccupational safetysewage workerscompensationjudicial activismArticle 226Article 32Article 142fundamental rightsright to lifestate liabilitycontractor liability
Judgment
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 34
A DELHI JAL BOARD
v.
NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF
, SEWERAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5322 of 2011)
B
JULY 12, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR -GANGULY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Interference
C under - Judicial review - Petitions filed pro bono publico for
protection of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable
sections of the society- Importance of- Safety and protection
of workers who undertake jobs inherently dangerous to life -
Duty and constitutional obligation of the Court - Respondent
D no.1, engaged in the welfare of sewage workers, filed writ
petition by way of public interest litigation, raising issues
relating to safety and protection of sewage workers - Whether
the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition for
compelling the respondents (in the writ petition) to take
E effective measures for safety of sewage workers and ordering
payment of compensation to the families of the victims of
accidents taking place during sewage operations - Held:
The High Court, by entertaining the writ petition and issuing
directions for protection of the persons employed to do work
F relating to sewage operations, discharged its obligation to do
justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society
- The superior Courts will be failing in their constitutional duty
if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social
groups, NGOs an<:J social workers for espousing the cause
G of those who are deprived of the basic rights available to every
human being - It is the duty of the judicial constituent of the
State like its political and executive constituents to protect the
rights of every citizen and every individual and ensure that
everyone is able to live with dignity - Courts are not only
entitled but are under constitutional obligation to take
H 34
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 35
DIGNITY
cognizance of the issues relating to the fives of the people A
who .are forced to undertake jobs which are hazardous and
dangerous to life - Some time can always be devoted for
hearing the grievance of vast majority of silent sufferers whose
cause is espoused by bodies like respondent No. 1 -Public
Interest Litigation - Human Rights - Plight of sewage workers.· s
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Judicial
interference - Plight of workers employed/engaged for doing
work inherently hazardous and dangerous to life -
Constitutional obligation of the State and its agencies!
instrumentalities or the contractors engaged by them ...., Writ C
petition filed by respondent No. 1 whereupon directions issued
by High Court relating to safety and protection of sewage
workers - Whether the directions given by the High Court
amount to usurpation of the legislative power of the State -
Held: It cannot be said that by issuing directions, the High D
Court assumed the legislative power of the State - What the
High Court did was nothing except to ensure that those
employed/engaged for doing work~which is inherently
hazardous and dangerous to life are provided with life saving
equipments and the employer takes care of their safety and E
health - The State and its agencies/ instrumentalities cannot
absolve themselves of the responsibility to put in place
effective mechanism for ensuring safety of the workers
employed for maintaining and cleaning the sewage system
- Human beings employed for doing work in the sewers F
cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be
.affected by poisonous gases in the manholes - Argument of
choice and contractual freedom not available to appellant-
pub/ic authority and the like for contesting the issues raised
by respondent No. 1 - Public Interest Litigation - Human G
Rights - Plight of sewage workers.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 142 and 136 -
Enhancement of compensation - Exercise of power u/Articfe
142 of the Constitution - Death of sewage workers - Writ
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Petition - Interim directions of High Court directing payment
of compensation of Rs.1.5 to 2.25 lakhs to families of
deceased workers - Challenged by appellant - Hsld:
Challenge of appellant not tenable - However, High Court
should have awarded compensation which could be treated
8 as reasonable - The High Court could have taken note of the
increase in the cost of living and done well to award
compensation of at/east Rs.5 lakhs to the families of those
who died due to negligence of appellant-public authority which
did not take effective measures for ensuring safety of the
C sewage workers - Public Interest Litigation - Human Rights
- Plight of sewage workers.
Public Interest Litigation - Human Rights - Issue relating
to safety and protection of sewage workers and their
entitlement to grant of compensation - Directions issued by
D High Court in its earlier order dated 20-8-2008 - Non-
compliance with - Held: Directions issued by Supreme Court
to appellant-public authority to ensure compliance of clauses
(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (m) and (n) of paragraph 9 of
the said High Court order and to also ensure that these
E directions are 'complied with by the contractors engaged by it
for execution of work relating to laying and maintenance of
sewer system within the area of its jurisdiction - Appellant
further directed to ensure that directions given by the High
Court are made part of all agreements which may be
F executed by it with contractors/private enterprises for doing
work relating to sewage system - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 136.
Respondent no.1, which is engaged in the welfare of
G sewage workers, filed Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court
highlighting the plight of sewage workers and making
various prayers including issue of mandamus directing
the respondents (in the petition) to provide every sewage
worker with protective gears, clothing and equipments,
pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs to the families of the
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 37
DIGNITY
workers who died after entering the manhole for sewage A
cleaning and make provision for comprehensive medical
checkup of all the sewage workers and provide them
medical treatment free of cost along with full wages for
the period of illness. The High Court, vide order dated 20-
8-2008, passed interim directions pending final disposal B
of the writ petition C!nd in order to ensure compliance of
such directions constituted a Committee and
subsequently passed order dated 21-4-2009 directing the
appe!!ant-Delhi Jal Board to deposit Rs.79,000/- with the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in addition to c
Rs.1.71 lacs already paid to the families of the deceased
sewage workers. ·
The appellant-Delhi Jal Board contended before this
Court that by entertaining the writ petition filed by
respondent No.1 in the name of public interest litigation D
. and passing orders dated 20-8-2008 and 21-4-2008, the
High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution and usurped the
legislative power of the State; and that the High Court
committed serious error by directing the appellant to pay E
compensation to the family of the deceased sewage
workers.
The following three questions therefore arose for
consideration in the instant appeal: (1)Whether the High F
Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed
by respondent No.1 by way of public interest litigation for
compelling the respondents (in the writ petition) to take
effective measures for safety of sewage workers and
ordering payment of compensation .to the families of the G
victims of accidents taking place during sewage
operations; (2) Whether the directions given by the High
Court amount to usurpation of the legislative power bf the
State, and (3) Whether the High Court was entitled to
issue interim direction for payment of compensation to H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 12 S.C.R.
A the families of deceased workers.
Dismissing the appeal subject to direction regarding
the amount of compensation to be paid by the appellant-
Delhi Jal Board, the Court
B HELD:
Re: Question No.1:
1.1. It cannot be said that by entertaining petitions
filed by social action groups/activists/workers and NGOs
c for espousing the cause of those who, on account of
poverty, illiteracy and/or ignorance and similar other
handicaps, cannot seek protection and vindication of
their constitutional and/or legal rights and silently suffer
due to actions and/or omissions of the State apparatus
D and/or agencies/instrumentalities of the State or even
private individuals, the superior Courts exceed the
unwritten boundaries of their jurisdictions. (Para 13] [59-
H; 60-A-B]
.
E 1.2. In last 63 years, Parliament and State
Legislatures have enacted several laws for achieving the
goals set out in the preamble but their implementation has
been extremely inadequate and tardy and benefit of
welfare measures enshrined in those legislations has not
F reached millions of poor, downtrodden and
disadvantaged sections of the society and the efforts to
bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots have
not yielded the desired result. The most unfortunate part
of the scenario is that whenever one of the three
G constituents of the State i.e., judiciary, has issued
directions for ensuring that the right to equality, life and
liberty no longer remains illusory for those who suffer
from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance
and directions are given for implementation of the laws
enacted by the legislature for the benefit of the have-nots,
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 39
DIGNITY
a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of A
judicial activism or judicial overreach and the orders
issued for benefit of the weaker sections of the society
are invariably subjected to challenge in the higher Courts.
In large number of cases, the sole object of this litigative
exercise- is to tire out those who genuinely espouse the B
cause of the weak and poor. [Para 15] (61-D-G]
. 1.3. This Court has time and again emphasized the
importance of the petitions filed pro bono publico for
protection of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable C
sections of the society. What the High Court has done
by entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for
protection of the persons employed to do work relating
to sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justice
to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society.
The superior Courts will be failing in their constitutional D
duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine
social groups, NGOs and social workers for espousin{)
. the cause of those who are.deprived of the basic rights
available to every human being, what to say of
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It E
is the duty of the judicial constituent of the State like its
political and executive constituents to protect the rights
of every citizen and every individual and ensure that
everyone is able to live with dignity. Given the option, no
one would like to enter the manhole of sewage system F
for cleaning purposes, but there are people who are
forced to undertake such hazardous jobs with the hope
that at the end of the day they will be able to make some
money and feed. their family. They risk their lives for the
comfort of others. Unfortunately, for last few decades, a G
substantial segment of the urban society has become
insensitive to the plight of the poor and downtrodden
including those, who, on account of sheer economic
compulsions, undertake jobs/works which are inherently
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 12 S.C.R.
A dangerous to life. People belonging to this segment do
not want to understand why a person is made to enter
manhole without safety gears and proper equipments.
They look the other way when the body of a worker who
dies in the manhole is taken out with the help of ropes
B and cranes. In this scenario, the Courts are not only
entitled but are under constitutional obligation to take
cognizance of the issues relating to the lives of the people
who are forced to undertake jobs which are hazardous
and dangerous to life. It will be a tragic and sad day when
c the superior Courts will shut their doors for those, who
without any motive for personal gain or other extraneous
reasons, come forward to seek protection and
enforcement of the legal and constitutional rights of the
poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the
0 society. If the system can devote hours, days and
months to hear the elitist class of eminent advocates who
are engaged by those who are accused of evading
payment of taxes and duties or otherwise causing loss
to public exchequer or who are accused of committing
E heinous crimes like murder, rape, dowry death,
kidnapping, abduction and even acts of terrorism or who
come forward with the grievance that their fundamental
right to equality has been violated by the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities in contractual matters, some
time can always be devoted for hearing the grievance of
F vast majority of silent sufferers whose cause is espoused
by bodies like respondent No.1. [Paras 16, 20] [61-H; 62-
A; 67-D-H; 68-A-F]
People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
G (1982) 3 SCC 235: 1983 (1) SCR 456; Hussainara Khatoon
(IV) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98: 1979 (3) SCR 532;
Municipal Council, Rat/am v. Vardhichan (1980) 4 SCC 162:
1981 (1) SCR 97; State of Uttarancha/ v. Ba/want Singh
Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402: 2010 (1) SCR 678 - relied on.
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 41
DIGNl1Y
Re: Question No.2: A
2.1. There have been instances in which this Court
has exercised its-power under Article 32 read with Article
142 and issued guidelines and directions to fill the
vacuum and for ensuring justice to the common man and 8
effective exercise of fundamental rights by the citizens.
[Para 21] [68-G-H; 69-A]
2.2. It cannot be said that by issuing directions, the
High Court has assumed the legislative power of the
State. What the High Court has done is nothing except C
to ensure that those employed/engaged for doing work
which is inherently hazardous and dangerous to life are
provided with life saving equipments and the employer
takes care of their safety and health. The State and its
agencies/instrumentalities cannot absolve themselves of D
the responsibility to put in place effective mechanism for
ensuring safety of the workers employed for maintaining
and c.leaning the sewage system. The human beings
who are employed for doing the work in the sewers
cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be E
affected by poisonous gases in the manholes. The State
and its agencies/instrumentalities or the contractors
engaged by them are under a constitutional obligation to
ensure the safety of the persons who are asked to
undertake hazardous jobs. The argument of choice and F
contractual freedom is not available to the appellant and
the like for contesting the issues raised by respondent
No.1. [Para 24] [71-F-H; 72-A-B]
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241: 1997
(3) Suppl. SCR 404; Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) G
1 SCC 226: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Union of India v.
Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294: 2002
(3) SCR 696 - relied on.
H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Re: Question No.3:
3.1. This Court deprecates the attitude of a public
authority like the appellant, which used the judicial
process for frustrating the effort made by respondent
No.1 for getting compensation to the workers, who died
B
due to negligence of the contractor to whom the work of
maintaining sewage system was outsourced. This Court
also expresses its dismay that the High Court thought it
proper to direct payment of a paltry amount of Rs.1.5 to
2.25 lakhs to the families of the victims. [Para 25] [72-C-
C E]
3.2. In view of the law laid down in the earlier
judgments of this Court, the appellant's challenge to the
interim directions given by the High Court for payment
o of compensation to the families of the workers deserves
to be rejected. However, the High Court should have
awarded compensation which could be treated as
rea~onable. The High Court could have taken note of the
increase in the cost of living and done well to award
E compensation of atleast Rs.5 lacs to the families of those
who died due to negligence of the public authority like
the appellant who did not take effective measures for
ensuring safety of the sewage workers. This Court could
have remitted the case to the High Court for passing
appropriate order for payment of enhanced
F
compensation but keeping in view the fact that further
delay would add to the miseries of the family of the
victims, this Court deems it proper to exercise power
under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct the
appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3.29 lakhs to the family of
G the victim through Delhi High Court State Legal Services
Committee. This would be in addition to Rs.1.71 lakhs
already paid by the contractor. The appellant shall be
entitled to recover the additional amount from the
contractor. Respondent No.1 shall also be entitled to file
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 43
DIGNITY
appropriate application before the High Court for payment A
of enhanced compensation to the families of other
victims; [Paras :30, 31] [81-D; 81-F-H; 82-A-C]
3.3. With a view to obviate further delay in
implementation of the directions contained in the first
8
order passed by the High Court on 20.8.2008, the
appellant is directed to ensure compliance of cla.uses (a),
(b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (m) and (n) of paragraph 9 of the
order and submit a report to the High Court. The appellant
shall also ensure that these directions are complied with C
by the contractors engaged by it for execution of work
relating to laying and maintenance of sewer system within
the area of its jurisdiction. A report to this effect be also
submitted to the High Court. Additionally, it is directed
that in future the appellant shall ensure that the directions
already given by the High Court and which may be given D
hereafter are made part of all agreements which may be ·
executed with contractors/private enterprises for doing
work relating to sewage system. The said directions,
however, do not imply that the appellant and other
agencies/instrumentalities of the State like New Delhi E
Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi
State Industrial Development Corporation are not required
to comply with the directions given by the High Court.
Rather, they too shall have to submit similar reports. As
regards the other clauses of paragraph 9 of order dated F
20.8.2008; the High Court may give necessary directions
so that they are complied with and implemented by the
State and its agencies/instrumentalities without any delay.
[Paras 32, 33, 34] [82-C-H; 83-A]
Rudu/ Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141: 1983 (3) G
SCR 508; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC
746: 1993 (2) SCR 581; Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor
Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC 37: 1996 (2) Suppl.
SCR 331; Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das
H ..
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A (2000) 2 SCC 465: 2000 (1) SCR 480; Common Cause, A
Registered Society v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667: 1999
(3) SCR 1279; State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati AIR 1962 SC
933: 1962 Suppl. SCR 989; State of Gujarat v. Memon
Mahomed Haji Hasam AIR 1967 SC 1885: 1967 SCR 938;
B Basavva Korn Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (1977)
. 4 SCC 358; N. Nagendra Rao and Company v. State of A.P.
(1994) 6 SCC 205: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 144; State of
Maharasthra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke (1995) 5 SCC
659: 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 1; M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand
c Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151: 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 156; D.K.
Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416: 1996 (10) Suppl.
SCR 284; MCD v. Assn. of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and
others (2005) 9 sec 586 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
D
1983 (1) SCR 456 relied on Para 16
~979 (3) SCR 532 relied on Para 17
1981 (1) SCR 97 relied on Para 18
E 2010 (1) SCR 678 relied on Para 19
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 relied on Para 21
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 relied on Para 21,22
2002 (3) SCR 696 relied on Para 21, 23
F
1983 (3) SCR 508 relied on Para 25, 28
1993 (2) SCR 581 relied on Para 26, 28
1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 331 relied on Para 26
G 2000 (1) SCR 480 relied on Para 27, 30
1999 (3) SCR 1279 relied on Para 27
1962 Suppl. SCR 989 relied on Para 27
1967 SCR 938 relied on Para 27
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 45
DIGNITY
(1977) 4 sec 358 relied on Para 27 A
1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 144 relied on Para 27
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on Para 27
2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 156 relied on Para 28
B
1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284relied on Para 28
(2005) 9 sec 586 relied on Para 29
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5322 of 2011.
c
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.4.2009 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No. 5232 of 2007.
Colin Gonsalves, Abhishek Kumar, Ghanshaym Yadav,
Suresh Chandra Tripathy, Ritu Kumar, Jyoti Mendiratta, Asha
G. Nair, Varun Sarin, Anil Katiyar, Surya Kant, Sanjiv Sen, D
Praveen Swarup, Anuja Chopra, Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel,
Marsook Bafaki, A. Venayagam Balan for the appearing
parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal filed by Delhi Jal Board for setting aside
· an interlocutory order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi
High Court whereby it has been directed to deposit Rs. 79,000/
- with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee in addition F
to Rs.1. 71 lacs already paid to the families of the deceased
worker, namely, Rajan is one of the several thousand cases filed
by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to challenge
the orders passed by the High Courts for ensuring that the goal
of justice set out in the preamble to the Constitution of India is G
fulfilled, at least in some measure, for the disadvantaged
sections of the society who have been deprived of fundamental
rights to equality, life and liberty for last more than 6 decades.·
The appeal is also illustrative of how the State apparatus is
insensitive to .the safety and well being of those who are, on H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
1
A account of sheer poverty, compelled to work under most
unfavourable conditions and regularly face the threat of being
deprived of their life.
3. The laws enacted by Parliament and State legislatures
provide for payment of compensation to the legal
B representatives of those killed in air, rail or motor accident. The
legal representatives of a workman, who dies while on duty in
a factory/industry/establishment get a certain amount of
compensation. Even those who are killed in police action get
compensation in the form of ex-gratia announced by the
C political apparatus of the State. However, neither the law
makers nor those who have been entrusted with the duty of
implementing the laws enacted for welfare of the unorganized
workers have put in place appropriate mechanism for
protection of persons employed by or through the contractors
D to whom services meant to benefit the public at large are
outsourced by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities
like the appellant for doing works, which are inherently
hazardous and dangerous to life nor made provision for
payment of reasonable compensation in the event of death.
E 4. Since the legal representatives of the persons who work
in the sewers laid or maintained by the State and/or its
agencies/instrumentalities on their own or through the
contractors and who get killed due to negligence of the
employer do not have the means and resources for seeking
F intervention of the judicial apparatus of the State, the National
Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied
Workers, which is engaged in the welfare of sewage workers
filed Writ Petition No.5232/2007 in the Delhi High Court to
highlight the plight of sewage workers many of whom died on
G account of contemptuous apathy shown by the public authorities
and contractors engaged by them and even private individuals/
enterprises in the matter of providing safety equipments to those
who are required to work under extremely odd conditions. In
paragraphs 4 to 6 and 8 of the petition, the petitioner made
H the following averments:
\
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 47
DIGNITY [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
"4. That the Petition seeks to highlight the plight ofsewage A
workers in Delhi. Delhi generates large quantities of
sewage. At present, the total quantity of sewage
generated is 2871 mid. Delhi Jal Board is responsible for
treatment and disposal of wastewater through a network
of about 5600 km of internal, peripheral and trunk sewers, B
for which approximately 5500 sewage wo'rkers are
employed with Delhi Jal Board for maintenance of the
sewage system and other related works. The working
conditions for sewage workers are such that they are not
only exposed to maximum risk against numerous toxic and C
harmful substances, but also they face suffocation and
accidental deaths, while working. These workers suffer
from high morality and morbidity due to such exposure at
workplace. Hereto marked and annexed as Annexure P-
1 are the photographs showing the sewage workers of . D
Delhi as photographed by Indian Express. These
photographs tell the sad story of the plight of these workers
as of today.
5. Scores of sewage/manhole workers die every year
doing this work in Delhi. These deaths are rarely E
documented. On 7.5.07 it was reported by Navbharat
Times that in 2003 the following deaths of manhole
workers took place:
Date Place Number of Deaths.
F
22 March Brahmpuri 1
23 March Shahdara 2
11 April Shaktinagar 3
25 June Rithala STP 5 G
July Connaught Place 3
July Okhla 1
October Uttamnagar 4
H
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A In 2004 the following deaths took place:
Date Place Number of Deaths.
24 May Vazirpur 3
25 May Gautampuri 1
B 11 June Samaypur 2
July Vazirpur 2
October Rohini 2
October Padpadur 2
Hereto annexed an (Annexure P-2 is the translated copy
c of the news article titled 'Thekedaron Ki Laparwahi se ho
rahi hain mauten' appearing in Navbharat Times on
7.05.07.
6. Even in year 2007, on 6.5.07 three sewage workers
D Ramemsh, Santosh and Ashish while working inside the
sewer inhaled poisonous gases and died of suffocation.
Hereto marked and annexed as Annexure P-3 is the news
report ?Ppearing in the Times of India dated 7.5.2907. The
accident took place near Madrasi Nallah in front of Vijay
E Enclave, Dabri (South West Delhi). The claiming work was
being done in complete violation of the National Human
Rights Commission guidelines. The victims worked
without any helmet or gas masks, which are mandatory,
as stated by NHRC, for the kind of work, they were doing.
F Neither there was any first aid kit with the workers nor
artificial respirators and portable ladders were made
available to them by the contractors. Apparently
contractors violated all the rules and guidelines.
8. That, a report has been prepared by Centre for
G Education and Communication in collaboration with
Occupational Health & Safety Management Consultancy
Services on "Health & Safety Status of Sewage Workers
in Delhi". The report concludes:
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 49
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"~ .. The workers are suffering from high mortality and A
morbidity due to exposure at workplace. 33 workers had
died in fast 2 years due to accidents while working
on the blocked sewer lines ... Fifty-nine per cent of the
workers enter underground sewer manholes more than 10
times a month and naff of them have to work more than 8 B
ho_urs a day. While working in underground pipelines, an
overwhelming majority of them have had cuts or injuries,
experienced irritation of eyes and suffered from skin rash.
Forty-one workers have reported syncope, and other 24
reported temporary loss of consciousness. A little over one- c
third of the workers had been immunized against tetanus
while none of them had been vaccinated against hepatitis
B.
Approximately 46 percent of workers across all age group
were found to be underweight according to Body Mass D
Index (BMI) calculation. 37 per cent have less hemoglobin
than the normal range. More than 65 per cent have higher
eosin Phil count (6 per cent) in spite of having normal
leukocyte counts (91 per cent). None of the samples tested
for HBsAg were tested positive. Results of urine E
examination pointed to irreversible damaged done to the
body organ system.
More than 50 per cent of the pulmonary function tests
results were abnormal. Chest X-rays results further F
confirmed the loss of functional capacity of the respiratory
system of the workers.
None of the worker has been given any formal
communication by the employer about the hazard present
during the work. None has been trained to provide first aid G
during any miss-happening ..... usage of other protective
gears like gloves, mask, and shoes were bare minimum.
Even supply of necessary safety gears was not adequate
to meet the requirements.
H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A All daily wagers were getting a wage of approximately
2950 rupees per months without any other benefit
irrespective of service period.""
The petitioner then referred to order dated 15.6.2006
passed by the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application
8
No. 8989/2001 - Kamdar Swasthya Suraksha Mandal and
Special Civil Application No.11706/2004 - the Manhole
Workers Union and Lok Adhikar Sangh and made various
prayers including issue of a mandamus directing the
respondents to provide every sewage worker with protective
C gears, clothing and equipments in terms of the order passed
by the Gujarat High Court in the two Civil Special Applications,
pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs to the families of the workers
who died after entering the manhole for sewage cleaning and
make provision for comprehensive medical checkup of all the
D sewage workers and provide them medical treatment free of
cost along with full wages for the period of illness.
5. After taking cognizance of the averments contained in
the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court issued
E notice to the respondents and also made a request to one of
the Judges - Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, to make an attempt to
find out workable solution to the problems faced by sewage
workers. The learned Judge heard the representatives of the
writ petitioner, appellant and other instrumentalities of the State,
F examined the documents produced by them and passed order
dated 5.4.2008 incorporating therein several suggestions for
protection of the workers engaged in cleaning of manhole etc ..
The Division Bench of the High Court, considered the
suggestions made by Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar, the affidavits
and documents filed by the appellant and the New Delhi
G Municipal Council and passed detailed order dated 20.8.2008,
paragraphs 9 and 10 of which read as under:
"9. Having considered the various reports made by the
concerned agencies and also the submissions made by
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 51
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
the concerned agencies and also the submissions made ·A
at the bar, we pass the following interim directions pending
final disposal of this writ petition:
(a) The medical examination and medical treatment will
be given free of charge to sewer workers and the treatment B
will continue for all such workers found to be suffering from
an occupational disease, ailment or accident until the
workman is cured or until death.
(b) The services of the sewer workers are not to be
terminated, either by the respondents or the contractors c
engaged by them, during the period of illness and they
shall be treated as if on duty and will be paid their wages.
(c) Compensation shall be paid by the respondents and
recoverable from the contractors, if permissible in law, to D
all the workmen suffering from any occupational disease,
ailment or accident in accordance with the provisions of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
(d) The respondents shall pay on the death of any worker,
including any contract worker, an immediate ex-gratia E
solatium of Rs. One lac with liberty to recover the same
from contractors, if permissible in law.
(e) The respondents shall pay I enslire payment of all
statutory dues such as Provident Fund, Gratuity and Bonus F
to all the sewer workers, including contract workers, as
applicable in law.
(f) The respondents shall provide as soon as possible
modern protective equipments to all the sewer workers in
consultation with the petitioner organization. G
(g) The respondents shall provide soap and oil to all the
workmen according to the present quota, but on monthly
basis and not at the end of the year.
.. H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A (h) The respondents shall provide restrooms and canteens,
in accordance with the DJB model rules, including therein
first-aid facilities, safe drinking water, washing facilities,
latrines and urinals, shelters, creches and canteens as set
out in the model rules. There are to be provided at what is
B known as 'stores' which are the places where the workers
assemble to give their attendance and from where they
depart to their respective work sites.
(i) The respondents shall provide all workman, including
contract workmen, with an accident-card-cum-wage-slip as
c set out i.n clause 8 of the C.P.W.D./PWD (DA)/Delhi Jal
Board Contractors Labour Regulations (for short "Labour
Regulations").
0) The respondents shall provide all workers, including
D contract workers, employment cards as set out in clause
9 of the Labour Regulations ·and, on termination of
services provide the contract workers and others with a
.service certificate as set out in clause 10 of the Labour
Regulations.
E
(k) The respondents shall authenticate by signing the
payment of wages register for contract workers in terms
of clause 5 of the Labour Regulations.
(I) The respondents shall submit to this court and to the
F petitioner within four weeks from today the full list of contract
workers and contractors engaged for work relating to the
sewers together with the wages paid to such workmen and
the number of years of employment of the workers.
G (m) The DJB is directed to ensure that the ex-gratia
payment in case of deaths of sewer workers has been
paid to the families of deceased workmen and in case
such compensation is not paid, release the same within a
period of eight weeks.
H
· DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 53
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(n) NDMC is directed to pay ex gratia payment of Rs. one A
lac each in respect of the accident of 7th December, 2003
where three persons working under the NDMC contractors
died, with liberty to recover the same from the contractor,
if permissible in law.
8
(o) The DJB and NDMC are directed to hold an inquiry into
deaths of sewer workers referred to in paragraphs 15 and
16 of the written submission of the petitioner dated 22nd
July, 2008 and submit a report to this Court within a period
of eight weeks. If it is found that the contract workers in
question were working under the contractors employed by C
NDMC/DJB, ex-gratia compensation of Rs. One lac shall
be released forthwith to the families of the victims subject
to right of recovery from contractors in accordance with
law.
D
(p) The respondents shall place on record a map showing
the areas within the NCO (1) where no sewage facilities
are available (2) where modern machinery cannot enter
due to narrow lanes or otherwise (3) the areas serviced
by modern machinery and (4) critical area where frequent E
deaths, accidents and blockages occur, it shall be done
within three months from today.
(q) Lastly, the respondents are directed to place on record
the proposals and plans to phase out manual work and
replace it with mechanized sewer cleaning, as envisaged F
by DJB as well as NDMC, which shall be done within three
months.
10. In order to ensure the compliance of the above
:irections, we constitute a Committee consisting of:
G
(i) Mr. S.R. Shankaran, IAS retired Chief Secretary to the
Government of Tripura, Chairman:
(ii) One officer each to be nominated by NDMC, DOA and
DJB respectively, who shall not be less than the rank of H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Under Secretary to the Government of India.
(iii) Joint Secretary of the Social Welfare Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi to be nominated by the
Secretary of that Department who shall be the Convener
of the committee.
B
(iv) One representative of the petitioner organization."
6. While the Committee constituted by the High Court was
examining various issues concerning the sewage workers
C including their health and safety, Hindustan Times (Metro Delhi
State Industrial Development Corporation, it was claimed that
the deceased workers were not employed by or through them.
However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and other authorities
conceded that as per the Fl Rs., the workers had died because
D they were not provided with protective gears before being
asked to work in the manholes.
9. After considering the affidavits filed by the State
agencies and the arguments made i...ofore it, the Division Bencti
E of the High Court passed order dated 21.4.2009 (impugned
order), the relevant portions of which read as under:
"On going through the FIR, however, it is clearly seen that
the affidavit filed on behalf of DJB is completely
misleading. It is seen from the FIR that the victim Rajan
F and another workman, namely, Raj Kumar went inside the
sewer through stairs. Before going down they had asked
the official of the contractor for safety equipments and
oxygen masks, but the official of the contractor did not pay
heed to their requests. It is further seen from the FIR that
G they were working in the same manner for the last one
week but despite repeated requests made to the
contractor they were not provided with safety equipments
and oxygen masks. It is further seen that they were painting ·
the sewer and due to presence of toxic gases and lack of
H oxygen in the sewer, Rajan became unconscious and
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 55
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
ultimately declared to be dead when he was taken to the A
hospital. The other workman was feeling giddy and fell
down and sustained injurie~ on his face.
Learned counsel appearing for the DJB conceded
that protective equipments were not provided by the DJB
in spite of the directions issued by this Court vide order 8
dated 20th August, 2008. According to him the
responsibility was of the contractor to provide safety
equipments as per the contract. It is clear that the sewage
workers were left at the mercy of the contractor who failed
to take basic precautions resulting in death of workman C
Rajan.
Insofar as the death that occurred within the
jurisdiction of ODA, it has been stated in its affidavit that
no work of de-silting of sewage lines or otherwise was in o
progress in the concerned division of ODA in which the .
accident took place. It was stated that possibly some local
residents had employed a person by the name Rakesh
Kumar on their own to check the ·particular manhole, in
which the incident took place. During the course of E
arguments, however, learned counsel for ODA conceded
that the affidavit does not reflect the correct position. He
admitted that Rakesh Kumar Saini was entrusted with the
work of desilting of the sewage lines, but according to him
the contract was completed in December, 2008. Further, F
according to him though the contract provided for a
warranty period six months, the contractor could not have
carried out any further work in the sewage line without prior
permission of the DOA. Counsel states that the ODA had
not provided protective gears and equipments as directed G
by this Court because under the contract it was the
responsibility of the contractor to provide the protective
gears and equipments.
Insofar as DSIDC is concerned, it is seen from the
FIR that four workers were involved in the incident. Two H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A workers namely, Manpal and Ram Braj Yadav died while
two others namely, Shyambir Sarvesh and Brajpal Yadav
were injured. They were working under the contractor
engaged by the DSIDC i.e. M/s Arun Kumar Goel. It is
seen from the FIR that the workers were not provided with
B protective gears and safety equipments.
As already noted, two deaths occurred in Katya!
Farms House, Bhaktwarpur Road, Narela. It is seen from
the FIR that the workers who died while carrying out the
work of cleaning the sewer were employees of the
c contractor by name Sunil, engaged by the Farm House
owners. Learned counsel appearing for the farm house
owners state that the owners have paid a sum of Rs. 1 Lac
in ex-gratia to the families of each of the victims.
D At the outset it must be stated that both DJB and
DOA have not complied with the directions issued by this
Court on 20 August, 2008, particularly directions for
providing protective gears and equipment and for issuing
employment cards to the contractor's workers. Let notice
E be issued to the CEO, DJB and the Vice Chairman, DOA
to show cause as why action for contempt should not be
initiated against them under the Contempt of Courts Act
for violating the directions issued by this Court vide order
dated 20th August, 2008. Notice shall be returnable on
F 27th August, 2009.
DOA and DSIDC are directed to deposit the amount
of compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs per worker with the High
Court legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) for being
paid to the families of the victims within four weeks. It will
G be open to the DDA/DSIDC to adjust/recover the amount
paid from the contractor. According to the DJB, the
contractor has already paid a sum of Rs.1. 71 lacs to the
victims' families. DJB is directed to deposit the balance
amount to compensation i.e. Rs.79,000/- with the
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 57
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
DHCLSC within four weeks. DHCLSC will ascertain A
whether the amount of Rs.1.71 lacs has been received by
the victims' families as stated by the DJB. The owners of
Katyal Farm House shall deposit a sum of Rs.1.5 lacs per
worker, i.e., in all Rs.3 lacs, with DHCLSC. DHCLSC will
ascertain whether the victims' families have received the B
amount of Rs. 1 lac as claimed by the farm house owners.
The CEO of DJB, Vice Chairman of DDA and
Managing Director of DSIDC are directed to file their
respective affidavits before the Committee within four C
weeks confirming that their respective affidavits before the
Committee within four weeks confirming that their
organizations have complied with all the directions issued
by this Court from time to time and if there are any
shortcomings, to specify them and also to give an
undertaking in writing before the Committee that all D
shortfalls shall be rectified within a period to be fixed by
the Committee. All the three organizations are directed
to file documents before the Committee indicating:;.
(i) That all the muster roll workers and the contract E
workers have been provided with protective gears.
(ii) That all the muster roll workers and the contract
workers have been provided provident fund.
(iii) That all the muster roll workers have been given F
employment card.
(iv) That medical examination, as directed by this
Court, is being conducted in respect of contract
workers fee of cost and copies of the medical G
records may also be furnished to the petitioner
union."
. 1O. Learned counsel for the appellant, who had the tacit
support of the learned counsel representing the Government of
H
,-
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council
and the Delhi Development Authority, argued that the impugned
order is liable to be set aside because by entertaining the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 in the name of public interest
litigation and passing orders dated 20.8.2008 and 21.4.2009,
B the High Court transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and usurped the legislative power
of the State. Learned counsel referred to the directions
contained in the two orders and argued that the High Court
does not have the jurisdiction to directly or indirectly alter the
c terms of agreement entered into between the appellant and the
contractor - M/s. AARSELF Michigan-JV. Learned counsel
further argued that the High Court committed serious error by
directing the appellant to pay compensation to the family of the
worker ignoring that he was employed by M/s. AARSELF
D Michigan-JV to whom the contract for rehabilitation of sewer
in the zoo area had been awarded. Learned counsel
emphasized that as per the terms of the agreement, it was the
duty of the contractor to provide safety equipments to the
workers engaged in sewage operations and the appellant
cannot be made liable for the negligence, if any, of the
E contractor. Learned counsel then referred to affidavit dated
18.4.2009 filed by the contractor to show that necessary safety
equipments were put in place and argued that the appellant and
other public authorities cannot be held liable for the accidental
deaths. Learned counsel lastly argued that even if the High
F Court felt that it was the responsibility of the appellant and other
public authorities to compensate the victims of accident, there
was no occasion for directing issue of notice to the higher
functionaries of the appellant and the Delhi Development
Authority to show cause against the proposed initiation of
G proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1971 (for short,
'the 1971 Act') on the ground of alleged violation of the
directions contained in order dated 20.8.2008.
11. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing
H for respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and the_
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 59
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
directions given by the High Court for ensuring safety of the A
persons employed by or through the appellant and other State
agencies for doing hazardous work by asserting that they cannot
be absolved of their liability to compensate the victims of
accidents merely because the work of laying and maintaining
the sewage system has been outsourced. Learned senior B
counsel submitted that the appellant is really not aggrieved by
the direction given for payment of compensation, but is bothered
by the notice issued to its Chief Executive Officer for initiation
~ of proceedings under the 1971 Act. He submitted that this Court
should not entertain the appellant's grievance against such c
directions because the concerned functionary can show to the
High Court that he has not committed contempt within the
meaning of Section 2(b) of the 1971 Act.
12. In the light of the arguments made by the learned
counsel, the following three questions arise for our D
consideration:
(1) Whether the High Court.was justified in entertaining the
writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by way of public interest
litigation for compelling the respondents to take effective E
measures for safety of sewage workers and ordering payment ·
of compensation to the families of the victims of accidents
taking place during sewage operations,
(2) Whether the directions given by the High Court amount F
to usurpation of the legislative power of the State, and
(3) Whether the High Court was entitled to issue interim
direction for payment of compensation to the families of
deceased workers.
G
Re: Question No.1:
13. At the threshold, we deem it necessary to erase the
impression and misgivings of some people that by entertaining
petitions filed by social action groups/activists/workers and
H
60. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A NGOs for espousing the cause of those who, on account of
poverty, illiteracy and/or ignorance and similar other handicaps,
cannot seek protection and vindication of their constitutional
and/or legal rights and silently suffer due to actions and/or
omissions of the State apparatus and/or agencies/
s instrumentalities of the State or even private individuals, the
superior Courts exceed the unwritten boundaries of their
jurisdictions. When the Constitution of India was adopted, the
people of this country resolved to constitute India into a
Sovereign Democratic Republic. They also resolved to secure
c to all its citizens justice, social, economic and political; liberty
of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of
status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
integrity of the nation.
D 14. For achieving the goals set out in the preamble, the
framers of the Constitution identified and recognized certain
basic rights of the citizens and individuals and pooled them in
Part Ill, which has the title 'Fundamental Rights' and
simultaneously incorporated Directive Principles of State Policy
E which, though not enforceable by any Court are fundamental in
governance of the country and the State is under obligation to
comply with the principles embodied in Part-IV in making laws.
Article 38, which was renumbered as Clause (1) thereof by the
Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 declares that
F the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by
securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order
in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all
the institutions of the national life. Clause (2) of this Article,
which was inserted by the same Amending Act declares that
G State shall, in particular, strive to minimize the inequalities in
income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status,
facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals, but
also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or
engaged in different vocations. Article 39(e) mandates that the
H State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 61
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
,he health and strength of workers, men and women, and the A
:ender age of chilc;lren are not abused and that Citizens are not
;orced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to
their age or strength. Article 39A which was inserted by the
Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 lays down
that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system B
promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in
particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or
schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of
economic or other disabilities. Article 42 enjoins the State to c
make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work
and for maternity relief.
15. In last 63 years, Parliament and State Legislatures
have enacted several laws for achieving the goals set out in the
preamble but their implementation has beer\ extremely D
inadequate and tardy and benefit of welfare measures
enshrined in those legislations has not reached millions of poor,
downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the society and
the efforts to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots
have not yield the desired result. The most unfortunate part of E
the scenario is that whenever one of the three constituents of
the State i.e., judiciary, has issued directions for ensuring that
the right to equality, life and liberty no longer remains illusory
for those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, _illiteracy and
ignorance and directions are given for implementation of the F
laws enacted by the legislature forthe benefit of the have-nots,
a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial
activism or judicial overreach and the orders issued for benefit
of the weaker sections of the society are invariably subjected
to challenge in the higher Courts. In large number of cases, G
the sole object of this litigative exercise is to tire out those who
genuinely espouse the cause of the weak and poor.
16. This Court has time and again emphasized the
importance of the petitions filed pro bono publico for protection
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 12 S.C.R.
A of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable sections of the
society. In People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of
India (1982) 3 SCC 235, this Court said:
"We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our command
that public interest litigation which is a strategic arm of the
B legal aid movement and which is intended to bring justice
within the reach of the poor masses, who constitute the low
visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind of
litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is
essentially of an adversary character where there is a
c dispute between two litigating parties, one making claim
or seeking relief against the other and that other opposing
such claim or resisting such relief. Public interest litigation
is brought before the court not for the purpose of
enforcing the right of one individual against another as
D happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is
intended to promote and vindi,..ate public interest which
demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights
.of large numbers of people who are poC!r, ignorant or in
a socially or economically disadvantaged position should
E not go unnoticed and unredressed. That would be
destructive of the rule of law which forms one of the
essential elements of public interest in any democratic form
of Government. The rule of law does not mean that the
protection of the law must be available only to a fortunate
F few or that the law should be allowed to be prostituted by
the vested interests for protecting and upholding the
status quo under the guise of enforcement of their civil
and political rights. The poor too have civil and political
rights and the rule of Jaw is meant for them also, though
today it exists only on paper and not in reality. If the sugar
G
barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right
to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by
exploiting the consuming public, have the chamars
belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental
right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil?
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 63
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
The former can approach the courts with a formidable army A
of distinguished lawyers paid in four or five figures per day
and if their right to exploit is upheld against .the Government
under the label of fundamental right, the courts are praised
for their boldness and courage and their independence and
fearlessness are applauded and acclaimed. But, if the B
fundamental right of the poor and helpless victims of
injustice is sought to be enforced by public interest
litigation, the so-called champions of human rights frown
upon it as waste of time of the highest court in the land,
which, according to them, should not engage itself in such c
small and trifling matters. Moreover, these self-styled
human rights activists forget that civil and political rights,
priceless and invaluable as they are for freedom and
democracy, simply do not exist for the vast masses of our
people. Large numbers of men, women and children who D
constitute the bulk of our population are today living a
sub-human existence in conditions of abject poverty; utter
grinding poverty has broken their back and sapped their
moral fibre. They have no faith in the existing social and
economic system.
E
Public interest litigation, as we conceive it, is essentially
a cooperative or collaborative effort on the part of the
petitioner, the State or public authority and the court to
secure observance of the constitutional or legal rights,
benefits and privileges conferred upon the vulnerable F
sections of the community and to reach social justice to
them. The State or public authority against whom public
interest litigation is brought should be as much interested
in ensuring basic human rights, constitutional as well as
legal, to those who are in a socially and economically G
disadvantaged position, as the petitioner who brings the
public interest litigation before the court. The State or public
authority which is arrayed as a respondent in public interest
litigation should, in fact, welcome it, as it would give it an
opportunity to right a wrong or to redress an injustice done H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A to the poor and weaker sections of the community whose
welfare is and must be the prime concern of the State or
the public authority.
There is a misconception in the minds of some lawyers,
journalists and men in public life that public interest
B litigation is unnecessarily cluttering up the files of the court
and adding to the already staggering arrears of cases
which are pending for long years and it should not
therefore be encouraged by the court. This is, to our mind,
a totally perverse view smacking of elitist and status quoist
c approach. Those who are decrying public interest litigation
do not seem to realise that courts are not meant only for
the rich and the well-to-do, for the landlord and the gentry,
for the business magnate and the industrial tycoon, but they
exist also for the poor and the down-trodden, the have-nots
D and the handicapped and the half-hungry millions of our
countrymen. So far the courts have been used only for the
purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the
affluent. It is only these privileged classes which have been
able to approach the courts for protecting their vested
E interests. It is only the moneyed who have so far had the
golden key to unlock the doors of justice .......... No State
has a right to tell its citizens that because a large number
of cases of the rich and the well-to-do are pending in our
courts, we will not help the poor to come to the courts for
F seeking justice until the staggering load of cases of people
who can afford, is disposed of. The time has now come
when the courts must become the courts for the poor and
struggling masses of this country. They must shed their
character as upholders of the established order and the
status quo. They must be sensitised to the need of doing
G
justice to the large masses of people to whom justice has
been denied by a cruel and heartless society for
generations. The realisation must come to them that social
justice is the signature tune of our Constitution and it is
their solemn duty under the Constitution to enforce the
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 65
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
basic human rights of the poor and vulnerable sections of A
the community and actively help in the realisation of the
constitutional goals."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. State of Bihar (1980) 8
1 SCC 98, P.N. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) observed:
"..... Today, unfortunately, in our country the poor are priced
out of the judicial system with the result that they are losing
faith in the capacity of our legal system to bring about c
changes in their life conditions and to deliver justice to
them. The poor in their contact with the legal system have
always been on the wrong side of the line. They have
always come across 'law for the poor' rather than 'law of
the poor'. The law is regarded by them as something o
mysterious and forbidding-always taking something away
from them and not as a positive and constructive social
device for changing the social. economic order and
improving their life conditions by"conferring rights and
benefits on them. The result is that the legal system has E
lost its credibility for the weaker sections of the community."
18. In Municipal Council, Rat/am v. Vardhichan (1980)
4 SCC 162, Krishna Iyer, J. said:
" ... The truth is that a few profound issues of processual F
jurisprudence of great strategic significance to our legal
system face us and we must zero-in on them as they
involve problems of access to justice for the people
beyond the blinkered rules of 'standing' of British-Indian
vintage. If the centre of gravity of justice is to shift, as the G
Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from the traditional
individualism of locus standi to the community orientation
of public interest litigation, these issues must be
considered ....
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A xxx xxx xxx
.... Why drive common people to public interest action?
Where directive principles have found statutory expression
in do's and don'ts the court will not sit idly by and all-Ow
municipal government to become a statutory mockery. The
B
law will relentlessly be enforced and the plea of poor
finance will be poor alibi when people in misery cry for
justice."
19. In State of Uttaranchal v. Ba/want Singh Chaufal
C (2010) 3 sec 402), this Court examined various facets of public
interest litigation in the backdrop of criticism from within and
outside the system. Dalveer Bhandari, J. made lucid analysis
of the concept and development of public interest litigation in
the following three phases:
D
"Phase 1.-·lt deals with cases of this Court where
directions and orders were passed primarily to protect
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the marginalised
groups and sections of the society who because of
extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorance cannot approach
E
this Court or the High Courts.
Phase 11.-lt deals with the cases relating to protection,
preservation of ecology, environment, forests, marine life,
wildlife, mountains, rivers, historical monuments, etc. etc.
F
Phase 111.-lt deals with the directions issued by the Courts
in maintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in
governance."
G While dealing with the first phase of development, the Court
referred to large number of precedents and recorded its
conclusion in the following words:
"We would not like to overburden the judgment by
multiplying these cases, but a brief resume of tbese cases
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 67
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
demonstrates that in order to preserve and protect the A
fundamental rights of marginalised, deprived and poor
sections of the society, the courts relaxed the traditional
rule of locus standi and broadened the definition of
aggrieved persons and gave directions and orders. We
would like to term cases of this period where the Court B
relaxed the rule of locus standi as the first phase of the
public interest litigation. The Supreme Court and the High
Courts earned great respect and acquired great credibility
in the eyes of public because of their innovative efforts to
protect and preserve the fundamental rights of people c
belonging to the poor and marginalised sections of the
society."
20. These judgments are complete answer to the
appellant's objection to the maintainability of the writ petition
filed by respondent No.1. What the High Court has done by D
entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for
protection of the persons employed to do work relating to
sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justiceJo the
disadvantaged and poor sections of the society. We may add
that the superior Courts will be failing in their constitutional duty E
if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social
groups, NGOs and social workers for espousing the cause of
those who are deprived of the basic rights available to every
human being, what to say of fundamental rights guaranteed
und€r the Constitution. It is the duty of the judicial constituent F
of the State like its political and executive constituents to
protect the rights of every citizen and every individual and
ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity. Given the
option, no one would like to enter the manhole of sewage
system for cleaning purposes, but there are people who are G
forced to undertake such hazardous jobs with the hope that at
the end of the day they will be able to make some money and
feed their family. They risk their lives for the comfort of others.
Unfortunately, for last few decades, a substantial segment of
the urban society has become insensitive to the plight of the H
68 SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A poor and downtrodden including those, who, on account of
sheer economic compulsions, undertake jobs/works which are
inherently dangerous to life. People belonging to this segment
do not want to understand why a person is made to enter
manhole without safety gears and proper equipments. They
B look the other way when the body of a worker who dies in the
manhole is taken out with the help of ropes and cranes. In this
scenario, the Courts are not only entitled but are under
constitutional obligation to take cognizance of the issues relating
to the lives of the people who are forced to undertake jobs
c which are hazardous and dangerous to life. It will be a tragic
and sad day when the superior Courts will shut their doors for
those, who without any motive for personal gain or other
extraneous reasons, come forward to seek protection and
enforcement of the legal and constitutional rights of the poor,
downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the society. If the
0
system can devote hours, days and months to hear the elitist
class of eminent advocates who are engaged by those who are
accused of evading payment of taxes and duties or otherwise
causing loss to public excheque: or who are accused of
committing heinous crimes like murder, rape, dowry death,
E kidnapping, abduction and even acts of terrorism or who come
forward with the grievance that their fundamental right to
equality has been violated by the State and/or its agencies/
instrumentalities in contractual matters, some time can always
be devoted for hearing the grievance of vast majority of silent
F sufferers whose cause is espoused by bodies like respondent
No.1.
Re: Question No.2:
G 21. There have been instances in which this Court has
exercised its power under Article 32 read with Article 142 and
issued guidelinE!S and directions to fill the vacuum. Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241, Vineet Narain v. Union
of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Union of India v. Association
H for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 are illuminating
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 69
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
examples of the exercise of this Court's power under Article A
32 for ensuring justice to the common man and effective
exercise of fundamental rights by the citizens. In Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan (supra), the Court entertained the petition
filed by certain social activists and NGOs for effective protection
of fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 B
and 21. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Court made a
note of its obligation under Article 32 of the Constitution in the
following words:
"11. The obligation of this Court under Article 32 of the C
Constitution for the enforcement of these fundamental
rights in the absence of legislation must be viewed along
with the role of judiciary envisaged in the Beijing Statement
of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the
LAWASIA region. These principles were accepted by the
Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific at Beijing in 1995 D
as those representing the minimum standards necessary
to be observed in order to maintain the independence and
effective functioning of thecjudiciary. The objectives of the
judiciary mentioned in the Beijing Statement are:
E
"Objectives of the Judiciary:
10. The objectives and functions of the Judiciary include
the following:
(a) to ensure that all persons are able to live securely under F
the rule of law;
{b) to promote, within the proper limits of the judicial
function, the observance and the attainment of human
rights; and G
(c) to administer the law impartially among persons and
between persons and the State;"
22. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India (supra), the Court
observed: H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A "The powers conferred on this Court by the Constitution are
ample to remedy this defect and to ensure enforcement
of the concept of equality.
There are ample powers conferred by Article 32
read with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect
B
of law by virtue of Article 141 and there is mandate to all
authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court as
provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. In a catena of
decisions of this Court, this power has been recognised
and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary
c directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature
steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its
role."
(emphasis supplied)
D
23. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic
Reforms (supra), this Court was called upon to examine the
correctness of the directions given by the Division Bench of
Delhi High Court for implementatior of the recommendations
E made by the Law Commission in its 170th Report. While
modifying the directions given by the High Court, the Court
observed:
"45. Finally, in our view this Court would have ample power
to direct the Commission to fill the void, in the absence of
F suitable legislation covering the field and the voters are
required to be well informed and educated about
contesting candidates so that they can elect a proper
candidate by their own assessment. It is the duty of the
executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because
G its field is coterminous with that of the legislature, and
where there is inaction by the executive, for whatever
reason, the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its
constitutional obligations to provide a solution till such time
the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 71
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
legislation to cover the field. The adverse impact of lack A
of probity in public life leading to a high degree of corruption
is manifold. Therefore, if the candidate is directed to
declare his/her spouse's and dependants' assets -
immovable, movable and valuable articles - it would have
its own effect. This Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan B
dealt with the incident of sexual harassment of a woman
at work place which resulted in violation of fundamental
right of gender equality and the right to life and liberty and
laid down that in the absence of legislation, it must be
viewed along with the role of the judiciary envisaged in the c
Beijing Statement of Principles of Independence of
Judiciary in the LAWASIA region. The decision has laid
down the guidelines and prescribed the norms to be strictly
observed in all work places until suitable legislation is
enacted to occupy the field. In the present case also, there
0
is no legislation or rules providing for giving necessary
information to the voters. As stated earlier, this case was
relied upon in Vineet Narain case where the Court has
issued necessary guidelines to CBI and the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) as there was no legislation E
covering the said field to ensure proper implementation of
the rule of law."
24. !n view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid
judgments, we do not have any slightest hesitation to reject the
argument that by issuing the directions, the High Court has F
assumed the legislative power of the State. What the High
Court has done is nothing except to ensure that those
employed/engaged for doing work which is inherently
hazardous and dangerous to life are provided with life saving
equipments and the employer takes care of their safety and G
health. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities cannot ·
absolve themselves of the responsibility to put in place effective
mechanism for ensuring safety of the workers employed for
maintaining and cleaning the sewage system. The human
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A beings who are employed for doing the work in the sewers
cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be
affected by poisonous gases in the manholes. The State and
its agencies/instrumentalities or the contractors engaged by
them are under a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety
B of the persons who are asked to undertake hazardous jobs.
The argument of choice and contractual freedom is not available
to the appellant and the like for contesting the issues raised
by respondent No.1.
Re: Question No.3:
c
25. We shall now consider whether the High Court was
justified in issuing interim directions for payment of
compensation to the families of the victims. At the outset, we
deprecate the attitude of a public authority like the appellant,
D who has used the judicial process for frustrating the effort made
by respondent No.1 for getting compensation to the workers,
who died due to negligence of the contractor to whom the work
of maintaining sewage system was outsourced. We also
express our dismay that the High Court has -thought it proper
E to direct payment of a paltry amount of Rs.1.5 to 2.25 lakhs to
the families of the victims. Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
4 sec 141 is the lead case in which the Court exercised its
power under Article 32 for compensating a person who was
unlawfully detained for 14 years. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the
F judgment, which contain the reasons for making a departure
from the old and antiquated rule that a person, who has
suffered dueto the negligence of a public authority, can claim
damages by filing suit, are extracted below:
"9. It is true that Article 32 cannot be used as a substitute
G for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be
enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of
courts, civil and criminal. A money claim has therefore to
be agitated in and adjudicated upon in a suit instituted in
a Court of lowest grade competent to try it. But the
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 73
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
important question for our consideration is whether in the A
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can
pass an order for the payment of money if such an order
is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the
deprivation of a fundamental right. ............. .
B
10. We cannot resist this argument. We see no effective
answer to it save the stale and sterile objection that the
petitioner may, if so advised, file a suit to recover damages
from the State Government. Happily, the State's counsel
has not raised that objection. The petitioner could have C
been relegated to the ordinary remedy of a suit if his claim
to compensation was factually controversial, in the sense
that a civil court may or may not have upheld his claim. But
we have no doubt that if the petitioner files a suit to recover
damages for his illegal detention, a decree for damages
would have to be passed in that suit, though it is not D
possible to predicate, in the absence of evidence, the
precise amount which would be decreed in his favour. In
these circumstances, the refusal of this Court to pass an
order of compensation in favour of the petitioner will be
doing mere lip-service to his fundamental right to liberty E
which the State Government has so grossly violated. Article
21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be
denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court
were limited to passing orders of release from illegal
detention. One of the telling ways in which the violation of F
that right can reasonably be prevented and due
compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to
mulct its violators in the payment of monetary
compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading~to Jlagranr-
infringements of fundamental rights_cannotbe corrected by G
any other method open to thejudiciary to adopt. The right
to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of
·instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest
and which present for their protection the powers of the
H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this
country as it has perished in some others too well known
to suffer mention, it is necessary to educate ourselves into
accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the
true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must
B repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner's
rights. It may have recourse against those officers."
26. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC
746, this Court awarded compensation to the mother of a young
man who was beaten to death in police custody. The Court
C held that its powers to enforce fundamental rights carries with
it an obligation to forge new tools for doing justice. In Paschim
Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B. (1996) 4 SCC
37, this Court examined the issue whether a victim of apathy
of the staff of government hospital is entitled to compensation
D and answered the same in the following words:
"The Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare
State at the federal level as well as at the State level. In a
welfare State fhe primary duty of the Government is to
E secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate
medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the
obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare
State. The Government discharges this obligation by
running hospitals and health centres which provide
F medical care to the person seeking to avail of those
facilities. Article 21 imposes an obligation on the State to
safeguard the right to life of every person. Preservation of
human life is thus of paramount importance. The
government hospitals run by the State and the medical
officers employed therein are duty-bound to extend
G
medical assistance for preserving human life. Failure on
the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical
treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in
violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21. In
the present case there was breach of the said right of
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 75
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 when he was A
denied treatment at the various government hospitals
which were approached even though his condition was
very serious at that time and he was in need of immediate
medical attention. Since the said denial of the right of
Hakim Seikh guaranteed under Article 21 was by officers B
of the State, in hospitals run by the State, the State cannot
avoid its responsibility for such denial of the constitutional
right of Hakim Seikh. In respect of deprivation of the
constitutional rights guaranteed under Part Ill of the
Constitution the position is well settled that adequate c
compensation can be awarded by the court for such
violation by way of redress in proceedings under Articles
32 and 226 of the Constitution. (See: Rudul Sah v. State
of Bihar; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa; Consumer
Education and Research Centre v. Union of India.) Hakim D
Seikh should, therefore, be suitably compensated for the
breach of his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, we fix the amount of such compensation at
Rs 25,000. A sum of Rs 15,000 was directed to be paid
to Hakim Seikh as interim compensation under the orders E
of this Court dated 22-4-1994. The balance amount should
be paid by Respondent 1 to Hakim Seikh within one
month.
It is no doubt true that financial resources are needed for F
providing these facilities. But at the same time it cannot
be ignored that it is the constitutional obligation of the State
to provide adequate medical services to the people.
Whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done. In
the context of the constitutional obligation to provide free G
legal aid to a poor accused this Court has held that the
State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation in that
regard on account of financial constraints. [See: Khatri (II)
v. State of Bihar, SCC at p. 631.] The said observations
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A would apply with equal, if not greater, force in the matter
of discharge of constitutional obligation of the State to
provide medical aid to preserve human life. In the matter
of allocation of funds for medical services the said
constitutional obligation of the State has to be kept in view.
B It is necessary that a time-bound plan for providing these
services should be chalked out keeping in view the
recommendations of the Committee as well as the
requirements for ensuring availability of proper medical
services in this regard as indicated by us and steps should
c be taken to implement the same. The State of West
Bengal alone is a party to these proc~edings. Other
States, though not parties, should also take necessary
steps in the light of the recommendations made by the
Committee, the directions contained in the memorandum
D of the Government of West Bengal dated 22-8-1995 and
the further directions given herein."
27. In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000)
2 SCC 465, this Court considered the question whether the
High Court could entertain the petition filed by the respondent
E by way of Public Interest Litigation and award compensation
of Rs.10 lakhs to Hanuffa Khatoon, a national of Bangladesh,
who was sexually assaulted by the employees of Eastern
Railway. While rejecting the argument of the appellant that the
victim of rape could have availed remedy by filing suit in a Civil
F Court, the two-Judge Bench referred to the distinction made
between "public law" and "private law" in Common Cause, A
Registered Society v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 and
other cases in which compensation was awarded for violation
of different rights and observed:
G
"Having regard to what has been stated above, the
contention that Smt Hanuffa Khatoon should have
approached the civil court for damages and the matter
should not have been considered in a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution, cannot be accepted. Where public
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 77
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
functionaries are involved and the matter relates to the A
violation of fundamental rights or the enforcement of public
duties, the remedy would still be available under the public
law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages
under private law."
B
The Court then referred to the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution and
proceeded to observe:
"The word "LIFE" has also been used prominently in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. (See Article C
3 quoted above.) The fundamental rights under the
Constitution are almost in consonance with the rights
contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as
also the Declaration and the Covenants of Civil and
Political Rights and the Covenants of Economic, Social D
and Cultural Rights, to which India is a party having ratified
them, as set out by this Court in Kubic Darusz v. Union of
India. That being so, since "LIFE" is also recognised as a
basic human right in the· Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948, it ha$ to have the same meaning and . E
interpretation as has been placed on that word by this
Court in its various decisions relating to Article 21 of the
Constitution. The meaning of the word "life" cannot be
narrowed down. According to the tenor of the language
used in Article 21, it will be available not only to every F
citizen of this country, but also to a "person" who may not
be a citizen of the country.
Let us now consider the meaning of the word "LIFE"
interpreted by this Court from time to time. In Kharak Singh
v. State of U.P. it was held that the term "life" indicates G
something more than mere animal existence. (See also
State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale.) The inhibitions
contained in Article 21 against its deprivation extend even
to those faculties by which life is enjoyed. In Bandhua Mukti
H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Morcha v. Union of India it was held that the right to life
under Article 21 means the right to live with dignity, free
from exploitation. (See also Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India-and Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v.
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni.)
B
On this principle, even those who are not citizens of this
country and come here merely as tourists or in any other
capacity will be entitled to the protection of their lives in
accordance with the constitutional provisions. They also
have a right to "life" in this country. Thus, they also have
c the right to live, so long as they are here, with human
dignity. Just as the State is under an obligation to protect
the life of every citizen in this country, so also the State is
under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who
are not citizens."
D
The question whether the Centnl Government can be held
vicariously liable for the offence of rape committed by the
employees of the Railways was answered in negative by relying
upon the judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati AIR
. E 1962 SC 933, State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji
Hasam AIR 1967 SC 1885, Basavva Korn Dyamangouda
Patil v. State of Mysore (1977) 4 SCC 358, N. Nagendra Rao
and Company v. State of A.P. (1994) 6 SCC 205 and State
of Maharasthra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke (1995) 5
F sec 659.
28. In M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC
151, this Court examined the question whether the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh was justified in entertaining the writ petition
filed by the parents of 14 children, who died due to drowning
G in a river when they were on picnic organised by the school
authorities. While rejecting the objection to the maintainability
of the writ petition, the Court referred to Rudu/ Sah v. State of
Bihar (supra), Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (supra) and
D.K. Basu v. State of WB. (1997) 1 SCC 416 and observed:
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 79
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
"Next is the issue "maintainability of the writ petition" before A
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The
appellants though initially very strongly contended that
while the negligence aspect has been dealt with under
penal law already, the claim for compensation cannot but
be left to be adjudicated by the civil law and thus the civil B
court's jurisdiction ought to have been invoked rather than
by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This plea of non-maintainability of the writ
petition though advanced at the initial stage of the
submissions but subsequently the same was not pressed c
and as such we need not detain ourselves on that score,
excepting however recording that the law courts exist for
the society and they have an obligation to meet the social
aspirations of citizens since law courts must also respond
to the needs of the people. In this context, reference may D
be made to two decisions of this Court: the first in line is
the decision in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa wherein
this Court relying upon the decision in Rudul Sah (Rudul
Sah v. State of Bihal} decried the illegality and impropriety
in awarding compensation in a proceeding in which the E
court's power under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution
•
stands invoked and thus observed that it was a clear case
for award of compensation to the petitioner for custodial
death of her son. It is undoubtedly true, however, that in the
present context, there is no infringement of the State's F
obligation, unless of course the State can also be termed
to be a joint tortfeasor, but since the case of the parties
. stands restricted and without imparting any liability on the
State, we do not deem it expedient to deal with the issue
any further except noting the two decisions of this Court
as above and without expression of any opinion in regard G
thereto."
On the question of quantum of damages. the Court made
the following observations:
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A "Be it placed on record that in assessing damages, all
relevant materials should and ought always to be placed
before the court so as to enable the court to come to a
conclusion in the matter of affectation of pecuniary benefit
by reason of the unfortunate death. Though mathematical
B nicety is not required but a rough and ready estimate can
be had from the records claiming damages since award
of damages cannot be had without any material evidence:
whereas one party is to be compensated, the other party
is to compensate and as such there must always be some
c materials available therefor. It is not a fanciful item of
compensation but it is on legitimate expectation of loss of
pecuniary benefits. In Grand Trunk Rly. Co. of Canada v.
Jennings this well-accepted principle stands reiterated as
below:
D "In assessing the damages, all circumstances which
may be legitimately pleaded in diminution of the
damages must be considered. It is not a mere
guesswork neither is it the resultant effect of a
compassionate attitude."
E •
As noticed above, a large number of decisions were
placed before this Court as regards the quantum of
compensation varying between 50,000 to one lakh in
regard to the unfortunate deaths of the young children. We
F do deem it fit to record that while judicial precedents
undoubtedly have some relevance as regards the
principles of law, but the quantum of assessment stands
dependent on the fact situation of the matter before the
court, than judicial precedents. As regards the quantum,
no decision as such can be taken to be of binding
G
precedent as such, since each case has to be dealt with
on its own peculiar facts and thus compensation is also
to be assessed on the basis thereof, though however, the
same can act as a guide: placement in the society,
financial status differs from person to person and as such
H
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 81
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
assessment would also differ. The whole issue is to be A
judged on the basis of the fact situation of the matter
concerned though however, not on mathematical nicety."
29. Reference also deserves to be made to MCD v. Assn.
of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others (2005) 9 SCC 586 B
whereby this Court entertained the appeal filed against the
order passed by the Delhi High Court for payment of
compensation to the families of those who died in Uphaar
tragedy and directed the appellants to deposit Rs.3,01,40,000/
- with a further direction that 50% of the amount shall be C
available for distribution to the claimants.
30. In view of the law laid down in the afore-mentioned
judgments, the appellant's challenge to the interim directions
given by the High Court for payment of compensation to the
families of the workers deserves to be rejected. However, that D
is not the end of the matter. We feel that the High Court should
have taken cue from the judgment in Chairman, Railway Board
v. Chf!Qdrima Das (supra) and awarded compensation which
could be treated as reasonable. Though, it is not possible to
draw any parallel between the trauma suffered by a victim of E
rape and the family of a person who dies due to the negligence
of others, but the High Court could have taken note of the fact
that this Court had approved the award of compensation of
Rs.10 lacs in 1998 to the victim of rape as also increase in the
cost of living and done well to award compensation of atleast F
Rs.5 lacs to the families of those who died due to negligence
of the public authority like the appellant who did not take
effective measures for ensuring safety of the sewage workers.
We may have remitted the case to the High Court for passing
appropriate order for payment of enhanced compensation but G
keeping in view the fact that further delay would add to the
miseries of the family of the victim, we deem it proper to
exercise power under Article 142 of the Constitution and direct
the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.3.29 lakhs to the family of the
victim through Delhi High Court State Legal Services
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 12 S.C.R.
A Committee. This would be in addition to Rs.1.71 lakhs already
paid by the contractor.
31. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the
aforesaid direction regarding the amount of .compensation to
be paid by the appellant. It is needless to say that the appellant
8
shall be entitled to recover the additional amount from the
contractor. Respondent No.1 shall also be entitled to file
appropriate application before the High Court for payment of
enhanced compensation to the families of other victims and we
C have no doubt that the High Court will entertain such request.
32. With a view to obviate further delay in implementation
of the directions contained in the first order passed by the High
Court on 20.8.2008, we direct the appellant to ensure
compliance of clauses (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i), (k), (m) and
D (n) within a period of two months from today and submit .a report
to the High Court. The appellant shall also ensure that these
directions are complied with by the contractors engaged by it
for ~xecution of work relating to laying and maintenance of
sewer system within the area of its jurisdiction. A report to
E this effect be also submitted to the High Court within two
months. Additionally, we direct that in future the appellant shall
ensure that the directions already given by the High Court and
which may be given hereafter are made part of all agreements
which may be executed with contractors/private enterprises for
F doing work relating to sewage system.
33. The directions contained in the preceding paragraph
do not imply that the appellant and other agencies/
instrumentalities of the State like New Delhi Municipal Council,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi State Industrial
G Development Corporation are not required to comply with the
directions given by the High Court. Rather, they too shall have
to submit similar reports.
34. As regards the other clauses of paragraph 9 of order
H dated 20.8.2008, the High Court may give necessary directions
DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR 83
DIGNITY [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
so that they are complied with and implemented by the State A
and its agencies/instrumentalities without any delay.
35. The case be listed before the Division Bench of the
High Court in the third week of September, 2011 for further
orders.
B
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "public interest litigation"Sign in to search