[Answered] Hazardous manual desludging deaths expose a deleterious business model. Critically examine the governance failures, governance blindness and policy reforms crucial for complete mechanization and ensuring dignity in sanitation work.

Introduction

Manual desludging continues to kill sanitation workers in India despite laws, court rulings, and schemes. These deaths expose systemic governance failures and the urgent need for mechanized, dignified sanitation work.

The Grim Reality of Sanitation Work

1. According to data tabled in Parliament (2024), 150 deaths occurred during hazardous manual desludging in 2022–2023. Of 54 cases audited, 38 workers were privately hired, and only five were on a government payroll.
2. The rest were public sector workers “loaned” to private entities, revealing a lethal outsourcing model that dilutes accountability.
3. Despite the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) guidelines, and the NAMASTE Scheme (2023),
4. Manual cleaning persistence is a violation not just of statutory law but of Articles 14, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, dignity, and protection from untouchability.

Governance Failures and Policy Gaps

1. Lack of Mechanization and Investment: Out of 57,758 workers in hazardous sanitation, only 16,791 received PPE kits and fewer than 14,000 had health cards (MoSPJ, 2024). Only ₹14 crore has been released under NAMASTE, insufficient to mechanize sewer systems even in a single metro.
2. Blurred Lines of Responsibility: Local contractors and public-private arrangements obscure employer liability. In the event of death, police often file cases against junior supervisors or label incidents as “accidents”. As the Supreme Court (2014) ruled in Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India, all manual scavenging deaths must be criminally prosecuted, and compensation must be automatically granted, yet implementation is weak.
3. Data Blindness in Rural Areas: There is little to no profiling of sanitation workers in rural India despite the increasing usage of septic tanks in villages post SBM-Gramin Phase II. Women workers, especially those engaged in dry latrine cleaning or sweeping, receive virtually no policy attention.

The Deleterious Business Model

1. The practice of inviting manual labour bids in government tenders—despite the availability of robotic and mechanized technologies—highlights structural resistance to reform.
2. This not only endangers lives but also institutionalizes caste-based occupational segregation, with two-thirds of sanitation workers identified as Dalits, per government audits.

Reforms to Break the Vicious Cycle

1. Enforce Mechanization as Law: Mechanized cleaning must be mandated, not advised. Tender processes should exclude manual labour bids and mandate capital subsidies for robotic alternatives.
2. Criminal Liability for Principal Employers: Local bodies must enforce Supreme Court directions by cancelling offending contracts and imposing monetary and penal liabilities on top-level contractors and officials.
3. Rehabilitation with Dignity: Rehabilitation must go beyond one-time compensation to include: Housing, education scholarships, guaranteed job contracts. Loans linked to machine ownership and licensing of sanitation work to prevent exploitation.
4. Extend NAMASTE to Rural India: Swachh Bharat Gramin should include desludging under budgetary planning, and gram panchayats should be covered under NAMASTE profiling for sanitation workers.
5. Best Practice Models: Odisha has provided PPE and mechanized access to septic cleaning. Tamil Nadu piloted sewer robots that cleaned over 5,000 manholes in Chennai. Pune’s SWaCH model empowers waste pickers through cooperatives, showing how inclusive models can work.

Conclusion

To prevent more avoidable deaths, sanitation must be recognised as skilled, dignified labour. Complete mechanization, strict accountability, and inclusive rehabilitation are non-negotiable for a just and humane sanitation ecosystem.