Manual scavenging in India is not merely a vestige of colonial or pre-modern sanitation, it remains a continuing human rights atrocity, entrenched in caste hierarchies and social complicity. Globally recognized as a form of modern slavery, it stands in direct violation of international treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination  (ICERD), all of which are binding on India.

Rooted in Brahminical notions of purity and pollution, this practice assigns the task of handling human waste exclusively to Dalit communities. While caste has often been rationalized as division of labour, B.R. Ambedkar critiqued this functionalist view, arguing it was instead a “division of laborers.” The persistence of this practice, despite being banned under the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act 1993 and reaffirmed by the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act 2013 (The Act), reflects not just legal inadequacy but a larger societal failure.

Critical Gaps in the Legal Definition

Section 2(g) of the 2013 Act defines a “manual scavenger” restrictively, covering only those handling human excreta from insanitary latrines, open drains, railway tracks, or other premises notified by the government. If this work occurs elsewhere, or in locations not officially notified, it may fall outside the law’s protection.

The Act also fails to include other toxic environments like sewers and septic tanks, which are covered under the definition of hazardous activities under the Rules of the Act. This artificial distinction between hazardous workers and manual scavengers. The Supreme Court in Dr. Balram Singh v Union of India recognized the common origin of both the practices and sought to treat both equally in terms of rehabilitation. However, it held that it was powerless to address this issue since it was not specifically claimed by the parties. This differentiation has practical ramifications since manual scavengers are unable to get the benefit accorded to workers in hazardous employment and vice versa. For instance, workers cleaning septic tanks or sewers with inadequate gear are excluded from the benefits and safeguards intended for manual scavengers such as a One Time Cash Assistance for rehabilitation, skill development training for alternative employment, and access to scholarships for their children under central schemes. On the other hand, the provision of “protective equipment” as per the Rules are limited to workers engaged in hazardous activities and not to those cleaning insanitary latrines and open drains.

Moreover, as per the definition, if a person uses “devices and protective gear as notified by the government,” they are not considered a manual scavenger. In practice, however, the gear provided is often inadequate or outdated, and the law leaves it to the government to define adequacy – an area frequently exploited. For instance, the Railways circumvented the Act by providing workers with basic gear (gloves, masks) while continuing hazardous manual cleaning of tracks and septic tanks. This token compliance exploits the law’s silence on minimum safety standards, allowing employers to bypass accountability.

Due to these loopholes, despite constitutional bans under Articles 17 (abolition of untouchability) and 21 (right to life with dignity), manual scavenging continues unabated. Over 58,000 manual scavengers were identified as of 2018, with conviction rates for violations remaining negligible, causing the Supreme Court to recently order a total ban on manual scavenging in 6 states of India.

Pathway to Eradication

To combat the same, India’s manual scavenging laws must shift from method-oriented compliances to  outcome-oriented  protections,  prioritizing  whether  workers are exposed to hazardous waste over technicalities like tools or contractual status. Judicial precedents, such as Bangalore Water Supply v A. Rajappa wherein the Supreme Court redefined “industry” to protect labor rights and X v Principal Secretary which centered lived realities of unmarried women in abortion access, demonstrate that laws succeed when they align with dignity and ground truths. A revised definition of “manual scavenger” must thus read:

“A person engaged directly or indirectly in handling human excreta, sewage, sludge, or septic tank waste—regardless of decomposition stage, employment status, or location—without access to scientifically validated protective gear that fully eliminates exposure to health hazards.”

Further, long-term eradication demands eliminating human intervention through technology like Bandicoot robots and mechanized suction pumps. Concurrently, stricter penalties, including criminal liability for officials and contractors, should be imposed to deter complicity. Consequently, adopting such a reality-aligned definition along with such supplementary interventions would not only bridge critical legal loopholes but also reaffirm India’s constitutional commitment to human dignity and equality.