Nowhere in the world people sent to gas chambers to die, says SC on manual scavenging
New Delhi, Sep 18: Expressing serious concern over people dying during manual scavenging and sewage cleaning in India, the Supreme Court Wednesday said nowhere in the world people are sent to "gas chambers to die".
Although over 70 years have passed since the Independence, caste discrimination still persists in the country, the apex court said while making scathing observations on the practice.
A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra questioned Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, as to why proper protective gear like mask and oxygen cylinders were not being provided to people engaged in manual scavenging and cleaning of sewage or manholes.
"Why are you not providing them masks and oxygen cylinders? In no country in the world, people are sent to gas chambers to die. Four to five people are dying due to this every month," said the bench also comprising justices M R Shah and B R Gavai.
The Constitution has provided that all human beings are equal but they are not being given equal facilities by the authorities, it said.
The bench termed as "inhuman" the situation where the people are not provided with any protective gear and they are dying during the process of cleaning of sewage and manholes across the country.
The apex court made these hard-hitting observations while it was hearing the Centre's plea seeking review of its last year's verdict which had virtually diluted the provisions of arrest under the SC/ST Act.
Venugopal told the bench that no law of tort, which deals with civil wrong and its liabilities thereof, is developed in the country and the magistrates are not empowered to take cognisance on their own of such incidents.
A case can't be filed against the person who is sweeping the street or cleaning the manholes but the supervisory officers or the authorities, on whose instruction the work is carried out, should be held liable for this, he said.
"This is most inhuman to treat the human beings like this," the bench observed.
The bench also made observations on the aspect of untouchability in the country.
"Despite the constitution abolishing untouchability in the country, I am asking you people, do you shake hands with them? The answer is no. That is the way we are going on. The condition must improve. We have moved 70 years since Independence but these things are still happening," Justice Mishra said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Congress using hijab issue to pacify minority anger, alleges Karnataka LoP R Ashoka
Bengaluru: Leader of Opposition in the Assembly R. Ashoka has accused the Congress government of using the hijab issue to placate what he described as discontent among minority voters after the Davanagere by-election.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Ashoka alleged that the state government, instead of addressing issues such as price rise, corruption, farmers’ distress and law and order, was attempting to retain its minority vote base by reviving the hijab issue.
Referring to the 2022 dress code introduced by the BJP government, which prohibited hijab in schools and colleges, Ashoka said the Karnataka High Court had upheld the policy and emphasised the importance of discipline in educational institutions.
He questioned the Congress government’s move to revisit the issue and asked whether setting aside the court-backed policy to benefit one community could be described as secularism.
Ashoka further alleged that while the government was willing to permit hijab, it continued to prohibit saffron shawls.
He accused the government of dividing students on religious lines rather than treating schools and colleges as spaces of equality.
Drawing a comparison with Mamata Banerjee’s government in West Bengal, Ashoka claimed that excessive appeasement politics had harmed the state and warned that the Congress in Karnataka could face a similar political response.
He said voters in Karnataka would teach the Congress a lesson for what he termed “vote-bank politics” and for compromising constitutional and judicial principles.
