TC-30 (P)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI
IN THE MATTERS OF:
INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHANAND OTHERS .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BOMAI
SATHINAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIOJN ….RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/20__, ___/20__
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI
UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4THADYPU NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
Contents
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS. ......................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION ............................................................................................ 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 8
ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 13
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS MAINTAINABLE

OR NOT? ...................................................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution:........................ 13
1.2 Violation of the Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution: .............................................................................................................................. 14
1.3 Public Interest Litigation: .................................................................................................... 16
WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY THE

MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIANA AND UDHR. .............................................................................................................. 18
2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers goes against the UDHR guidelines. ............................................................ 18
sanitation workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of Indiana. ............................. 19
2.2.1 The failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate safety measures to the
sanitation workers violated Article 21. .................................................................................. 20
sanitation workers violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution. ........................................ 21
1|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2.3 Historically, Manual Scavengers face discrimination in all forms hence violating their
Rights under Article 17. ............................................................................................................ 22
WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF
THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION UNDER
DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW? ........................................................................... 23
3.1 Violation and Non-compliance of the Domestic Law: ........................................................... 24
3.2 Violation and Non-compliance of the International Law: .................................................. 25
3.3 Relevant Indian case laws to support the argument: ........................................................... 27

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS.
S.No. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
1.
& And
2.
AIR All India Reporter
3.
Anr Another
4.
Art Article
5.
et. Al And others
6.
FIR First Information Report
7.
HC High Court
8.
Hon’ble Honourable
9.
No. Number
10. Prohibition of Employment As

PEMSR Act Manual Scavenger And Their
Rehabilitation Act
11.
Ors. Others
12.
SC Supreme Court
13.
SCC Supreme Court Cases

14. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
15.
UOI Union Of India
16.
v/s Verses
17.
u/s Under Section

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India ................................................................................. 7

E. P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu ........................................................................................... 13
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v The State of Kerala and Ors .............................. 12
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors. .............................. 9
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India ................................................................................................. 12
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. Union of India &
Ors ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India & Ors. ............................................................... 7, 15
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors .............................................. 14
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279 .................. 14
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors ................................................ 14
Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra ............................................................................... 12
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India ...................................................................................... 8
STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES
1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013
3. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 1993
4. The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition)
Act, 1993
5. The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Rules,
2013
6. Workmen Compensation Act, 1923
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

2. The Covenant On Civil And Political Rights 1966

3. The Covenant On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights 1966
BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8thEd, 2022)
2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (16th Ed, 2021)
3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (14thEd, 2023)
4. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 3rd Ed,2018)
LEGAL DATABASE
1. http://www.indiakanoon.com
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.casemine.com
4. https://www.scconline.com

STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE PETITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH
COURT OF STATE OF BOMAI, IN THE MATTER OF INDIANA KARAMCHARI
SAFAI ANDOLAN & ANRS VS STATE OF BOMAI UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA. THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE
FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND ARGUMENTS.
Article 226 in Constitution of Indiana
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and
certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for
any other purpose.
[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation
to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of
such person is not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th Amendment]

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background:
• Indiana, a signatory to the UDHR, protects civil, economic, cultural, political, and social
rights.
• Human rights are safeguarded through fundamental rights in the constitution, which are
enforceable under Part III.
• Part IV of the constitution is persuasive, outlining directive principles.
• The government is obliged to defend human rights.
• Citizens can seek redressal from the Supreme Court for violations of fundamental rights
under Part III.
• The Supreme Court has the power to declare statutes unlawful if they contravene Part III.
• The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, mandates the establishment of human rights
commissions and courts to uphold rights.
Pratyaksh's Death:
• Pratyaksh, aged 45, was a sanitation worker employed in Arvind Municipal Corporation
(AMC), Arvindnagar.
• In 2011, while performing his duties, he descended into a sewer without proper safety
gear and died due to asphyxiation caused by inhaling carbon monoxide, hydrogen
sulphide, and methane.
• The post-mortem report confirmed the cause of death as excessive inhalation of toxic
gases.
• His family, unaware of the situation's gravity and fearing repercussions, did not pursue
the contractor for pending dues.
• Financial constraints forced Pratyaksh's wife to migrate back to their hometown,
Sathinagar.
Rahul's Death:
• In 2018, Pratyaksh's elder son, Rahul, aged 19, followed his father's footsteps and became
a sanitation worker in Sathinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC).
• During the rainy season, Rahul was assigned to clear water-logging in Sathinagar without
proper safety equipment.

• While attempting to clear a blockage caused by human excreta, Rahul was swept away by
gushing water, leading to his death.
• His body, along with his co-worker's, was found in the Panna River after two days,
confirming the cause of death as asphyxia.
Legal Proceedings:
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed, and police concluded the deaths were due to
the workers' negligence.
• The session's court upheld this, absolving the municipal corporations of responsibility.
• This decision sparked widespread public outrage, leading to various protests and media
coverage.
NGO Intervention:
• Indiana KaramchariSafaiSangatan (IKSS), an NGO advocating for the rights of daily-
wage workers, filed a writ petition on behalf of Rahul and his family.
• The petition, under Article 226 of the High Court, questions the failure of Arvind and
Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to provide adequate safety measures for sanitation
workers.
• IKSS argues that this failure constitutes a violation of the workers' inherent rights
enshrined under Part III of the Indiana Constitution and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

ISSUES RAISED
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE
RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS
OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?
10 | M E M O R I A L O N B E H A L F O F T H E P E T I T I O N E R
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Indiana
Constitution is maintainable as;
i. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution grants the High Courts the power to issue
writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any
other purpose deemed necessary for the administration of justice. Since the
petition is seeking redressal for the violation of fundamental rights, it falls within
the purview of Article 226, allo1wing the High Court to intervene and provide
relief.
ii. In this petition, the failure of the Municipal Corporation to provide safety
measures to sanitation workers violated their fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution.
iii. The IKSS, an NGO advocating for daily-wage workers' rights, has standing to file
the writ petition. Addressing a public wrong which is the gross violations of
sanitation workers' fundamental rights, the petition seeks judicial intervention due
to the state's failure to fulfill its duty. Hence, it qualifies as public interest
litigation and is maintainable under the doctrine of locus standi.
2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES

BY THE MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED
UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
It is humbly submitted that the state as through Municipal corporation infringes upon the
fundamental rights of the sanitation workers as provided in the Indiana Constitution as
well as international convents like UDHR, and the petitioner is here to seek relief for the
violation of fundamental rights, including the right to life, prohibition of torture, and the
right to effective remedy as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR). Additionally, the failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate

safety measures to sanitation workers violates Part III of the Indiana Constitution,
particularly Articles 21 (right to life) and 14 (right to equality).
3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

AND PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR
VICTIMS OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING
THE RIGHTS OF SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL
LAW?
It is humbly submitted that the state's failure to uphold safety regulations and protect
sanitation workers, alongside its neglect in providing justice for victims of workplace
hazards, violates both domestic and international laws. According to the Indiana
Constitution, sanitation workers have rights to life and dignity, which are undermined
when safety measures are ignored. Similarly, under global standards like the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Labour Organization (ILO)
guidelines, the state is obligated to ensure safe working conditions. Neglecting these
responsibilities shows a broader disregard for human rights, demanding urgent corrective
measures.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ADVANCED ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

1. Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts’ flows from Article 226, which confers wide powers
enabling the Court to issue writs, directions, orders for the enforcement of fundamental or legal
rights. The exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court is discretionary in nature.
2. The Writ Petition made in furtherance to the Honorable High Court of Bomai, due to the
Maharajya Municipal Co-operation’s inability to furnish adequate safety measures to sanitation
workers is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiana as; 1.1] The Jurisdiction
of the Writ Petition falls under the High Court of Bomai 1.2] Very importantly, it violates the
Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. 1.3] The petitioner
has the locus standi to file the current writ petition as they represent a special-interest group
operating in Indiana. The writ petition falls under the scope of public interest litigation doctrine.
3. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution permits the enforcement
of rights specified in Part III as well as for additional purposes. This condition necessitates the
presence of a legal right, which must have been violated and here not only the legal right but the
Fundamental Right to equality, Right to Life, right against Untouchability and Right against
exploitation and forced labor has been violated.
1.1 Jurisdiction of High Court Under Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution:
4. Article 226 of the Indiana Constitution bestows extraordinary jurisdiction upon the High
Courts of each state and union territory. It empowers these courts to issue writs, orders, and
directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose deemed necessary
to uphold justice. The article serves as a powerful tool for the judiciary to check and balance the
actions of the executive and ensure that the rights of citizens are protected at all times.
5. Article 226(1) states, “Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall
have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any
person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”
6. Article 226(1) focuses on the extensive authority vested in every High Court within its
jurisdiction, allowing them to issue a range of legal orders or writs to individuals, authorities, and
even governments. These orders, including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto,
and certiorari, serve the dual purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of
the constitution and addressing other legal matters deemed appropriate by the High Court. This
provision underscores the High Court's pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding
individual liberties within the territories it serves, reinforcing the judiciary's indispensable
function in ensuring justice and constitutional adherence.
1.2 Violation of the Fundamental rights given under Article 14, 17, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution:
7. Article 226 of the Indian Constitution deals with the power of the High Courts to issue
certain writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Violation of
fundamental rights can be challenged under Article 226 by filing a writ petition in the High
Court. If an individual's fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution
are violated by the state or any other authority, they can approach the High Court for
redressal.The petitioners are constrained to approach this Hon’ble Court for the enforcement of
Fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 17 of the Indiana Constitution read with article 14
and 21 thereof in view of the continuing violation of the rights against Untouchability.
8. In the same way the NGO filed the writ petition on behalf of Rahul and his family as their
fundamental rights has been violated by the Maharajya municipal corporation and their
employees which we will we discussing here.
9. Article 17 of the Indiana Constitution deals with the abolition of untouchability, stating
that "Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of
any disability arising out of Untouchability shall be an offense punishable in accordance with
law."
10. Sanitation work has often been stigmatized in Indian society, with individuals from
certain caste groups historically being relegated to such occupations due to social hierarchies. In
SafaiKarmachariAndolan v. Union of India1 (supra), the Supreme Court noted that the official
statistics issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for the year 2002-2003
“puts the figure of identified manual scavengers at 6,76,009. Of these, over 95% are Dalits
(persons belonging to the scheduled castes), who are compelled to undertake this denigrating
task under the garb of ‘traditional occupation’. The manual scavengers are considered as
untouchables by other mainstream castes and are thrown into a vortex of severe social and
economic exploitation. Their generation after generation fell into this vicious cycle of
exploitation and this leads to the violation of fundamental rights against untouchability of
sanitation workers. The matter related to Article 17 and violation has been further elaborated and
specified in the second issue.
11. Article 14 states,"The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the
equal protection of the laws within the territory of India."
The swift dismissal of the case by the police, without thorough investigation or consideration of
the circumstances, violates Article 14. If individuals in other professions were given more
diligent investigation and legal scrutiny in similar situations, it indicates unequal access to justice
for sanitation workers like Pratyaksh and Rahul.
The unequal protection of the law in this scenario is evident in the disparate treatment of
sanitation workers like Pratyaksh and Rahul compared to individuals in other professions.
Despite facing similar circumstances of workplace hazards and fatalities, sanitation workers are
subjected to swift dismissal of their cases without thorough investigation or consideration of the
circumstances. This contrasts with the more diligent investigation and legal scrutiny typically
afforded to individuals in other professions.
1
Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India 2014 (11) SCC 22
12. Article 21 states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law."
13. The failure of municipal corporations to provide adequate safety measures to sanitation
workers such as Pratyaksh and Rahul not only violates their right to life under Article 21 of the
Indiana Constitution but also undermines their right to life with dignity. This article guarantees
the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, ensuring that individuals are protected from
arbitrary deprivation of life. However, this right extends beyond mere existence, it encompasses
the right to live with dignity, free from degrading or inhumane treatment.In the context of
sanitation workers, the lack of safety equipment and protective measures exposes them to life-
threatening risks while carrying out their duties. Descending into deep sewers or cleaning
blocked drains without proper gear puts their lives at risk, as evidenced by the tragic deaths of
Pratyaksh and Rahul due to asphyxiation.
14. The NGO moved to this Hon’ble Court for safeguarding the rights and health of the
sanitation workers all around the country. The petitioner also urges this Hon’ble Court to issue
time bound direction to the authorities, so that the promise of Article 17 came into reality.
1.3 Public Interest Litigation:

15. In public law, the traditional rule that only the aggrieved person has the right to seek
judicial redress has been expanded to include any "public-spirited individual" or "association."
Even if a group of people shares a collective grievance, an unrecognized association may initiate
writ proceedings. When there's a public wrong or injury and the State's action or inaction
contradicts the Constitution, any member of the public has the right to bring the matter to court.
In the case of Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India2, the court emphasized certain factors
in determining locus standi in public interest litigation:
(i) the credibility of the applicant;
(ii) the apparent correctness of the information provided;
(iii) the demonstration of a failure of public duty;
(iv) refraining from delving into the merits of the case at the preliminary stage.
2
Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India AIR 2007 SC 163
(i) In the present case, IKSS is a Non- Governmental Organization which has a
presence and influence in Indiana. The claim made by the IKSS relates to the
Gross violation of Fundamental rights of sanitation work and the prima facie
accuracy of the claims may be demonstrated by other independent facts such as:(i)
The deceased were never equipped with safety equipment for their security;(ii)
non-maintainability of official documentation of sanitation workers by the
municipal corporation; (iii)No official documentation leads to no social security
benefits for the sanitation workers and their dependents;
(ii) The petitioner here, i.e. NGO named Indiana KaramchariSafaiSangatan (IKSS) on
the behalf of Rahul and his family has the locus standi to file the current writ
petition as they represent a special-interest group operating in Indiana as a Non-
Governmental Organization who works for the rights of daily-wage workers for
the past 20 years and the writ petition filed by them falls under the scope of public
interest litigation doctrine.
16. The Petitioner here, in order to show the maintainability of this writ petition, relies upon
the rationale laid down in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. Vs. The State of Madras
and Ors.3 In this it was held that, “It is in the interests of the general public or in the public
interest that all classes of the citizens of India are content and that their grievances should be
removed. A festering sore on the human body may eventually affect the whole body though at
first its effect is localized. Grievances or discontent in some particular area or in some State or in
some class of persons may eventually affect the whole Republic of India, though originally the
effects might be limited. The removal of any grievance, abuse or discontent is a matter not only
where the discontent or grievance is genuine it may well be in the public interest to remove such,
though the public in other parts of India may not be directly affected. It is in the public interest
that persons should be governed justly and well and removal of hardship and grievances of a
particular class is I think clearly a matter of public interest”
Furthermore, by this doctrine, the NGO moved to the High Court to file theWrit of Mandamus to
order the Public authority, i.e. Police officers to properly investigate the matter of the death of
3
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni and Ors. Vs. The State of Madras and Ors. 1960 AIR 1080
Sanitation workers due to Asphyxia also to strictly monitor if there is violation of Fundamental
rights of Sanitation workers by the Public officials by not providing them with proper safety
measures. It is further contended that the IKSS is a special interest group which is best placed to
bring the issue to the attention of the Court. Hence,it is humbly submitted that the IKSS has
locus standi to file the writ petition.
ADVANCED ISSUE II
WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY THE
MUNICIPAL COOPERATION INFRINGES UPON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS GUARANTEED UNDER PART III OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA AND UDHR.
sanitation workers goes against the UDHR guidelines.
17. Indiana is signatory to the UDHR.4 The Member States have pledged themselves to
achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms5.
18. The deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul highlight a clear violation of their human rights as
outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
19. Firstly, Article 3 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to life6. Both Pratyaksh
and Rahul were deprived of this fundamental right due to unsafe working conditions imposed
upon them by their employers. Pratyaksh died due to lack of safety gear while cleaning a sewer,
and Rahul lost his life while trying to clear a drain without proper equipment or training.
4
Moot Problem
5
UDHR Preamble
6
UDHR Article 3
20. Secondly, Article 5 of the UDHR prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment7. Both Pratyaksh and Rahul were subjected to extremely hazardous
working conditions without adequate protection, which ultimately led to their deaths. This
constitutes a form of cruel and inhuman treatment inflicted upon them by their employers.
21. Additionally, Article 8 of the UDHR guarantees the right to an effective remedy for
violations of fundamental rights8. However, neither Pratyaksh nor Rahul received any form of
compensation or justice for the injustices they faced. Pratyaksh's family was threatened by the
contractor, and Rahul's death was simply overlooked, with no accountability placed on the
employer or authorities. The point is further elaborated in point no. __
22. Furthermore, Article 23 of the UDHR affirms the right to just and favorable conditions of
work, including protection against unemployment9. Both Pratyaksh and Rahul were employed in
hazardous occupations with no regard for their safety or well-being. They were not provided
with the necessary equipment or training to perform their jobs safely, leading to tragic
consequences.
23. In conclusion, the deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul represent a clear violation of their
human rights as outlined in the UDHR. Their employers failed to provide them with safe
working conditions, leading to their untimely deaths. Justice must be served for these injustices,
and measures must be taken to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future.
sanitation workers goes against the Part III of the Constitution of Indiana.
24. Human dignity postulates an equality between persons. The equality of all human beings
entails being free from the restrictive and dehumanizing effect of stereotypes and being equally
7
UDHR Article 5
8
UDHR Article 8
9
UDHR Article23
entitled to the protection of law10. Rooted in the trinity of dignity, equality and liberty, the
fundamental rights that form the foundation of the constitutional makeup categorically reject all
forms of social exclusion, and imagine social reordering based on a constitutional order that
promotes justice, equality, dignity and liberty of all individuals. It is humbly submitted that the
Manual Scavengers have time and again being deprived from their right to life [1.2.1] and
equality [1.2.2].
sanitation workers violated Article 21.
25. It was observed by Honorable CJ Bhagavati in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India case that
11
“The expression ‘life’ in article 21 does not connote merely physical or animal existence. The
right to ‘life’ includes the right to live with human dignity”. Pratyaksh inhaled excessive
amounts of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and methane, while Rahul was exposed to
human excreta and sewage water. These substances are harmful and potentially fatal, and being
forced to work in such conditions without proper safety measures violates their dignity as human
beings. Providing a safety kit was the very bare minimum effort to be taken by the Municipal
Corporation.
26. As a matter of fact this practice is common and this has been admitted by the SC in case
of Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra12 –
“We see sewer workers dying in due to poisonous gases in chambers. They are
like death traps. We have not been able to provide the masks and oxygen
cylinders for entering in sewer chambers, we cannot leave them to die like this
and avoid tortuous liability concerned with officials/machinery, and they are still
discriminated within the society in the matter of enjoying their civil rights and
cannot live with human dignity.”
27. The deaths of sewerage workers due to asphyxiation while cleaning sewers and septic
tanks is a matter of grave concern. Despite the existence of laws prohibiting manual scavenging
10
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v The State of Kerala and Ors. (2019) 11 SCC
11
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India[1978] AIR 597 (SC)
12
Union Of India vs The State Of MaharashtraAIRONLINE 2019 SC 1167
and hazardous manual cleaning of sewers and septic tanks, such incidents continue to occur with
alarming frequency.13
28. In fact their right to life was completely snatched away from them as they died in the
process, and yet no investigation was conducted to look into this serious matter denying them the
right to equality. This is further explained in the following point.
sanitation workers violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution.
29. It was observed by the SC during the Royappa case that –14“Equality and arbitrariness are
sworn enemies, one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch”.
30. Equality is the cornerstone of the rule of law in a democratic society, whereas
arbitrariness is characteristic of absolute authority and unpredictability. The inadequate
investigation conducted in the cases of the victims and the absence of valid justifications for such
lapses, along with the failure to provide compensation to Pratyask’s family despite their
eligibility, coupled with the threats they faced, proves the arbitrary nature of the state's actions.
31. It is humbly submitted that in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath
Khosa and Ors. it was noted that intelligible differentia and rational nexus are the twin tests of
reasonable classification15. Now, In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification
two conditions must be fulfilled namely,
(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left
out of the group and,
13
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. Union of India &Ors. (2019)
14
E. P Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu [1974] 2 SCR 348
15
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sh. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 19
(ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.16
32. The exploitation of manual scavengers' illiteracy and lack of awareness highlights a
systematic failure in the treatment of this marginalized group. By subjecting them to hazardous
working conditions and denying them their rights, authorities perpetuate injustice and
discrimination. This underscores a lack of reasonableness in their actions and a disregard for the
well-being of manual scavengers. This is further elaborated in the next point.
2.3 Historically, Manual Scavengers face discrimination in all forms hence violating their
Rights under Article 17.
33. Manual scavengers have been the worst victims of the system of “purity and pollution”17.
Article 17 was a promise to lower castes that they will be free from social oppression. Yet for the
marginalized communities, little has changed18. Multiple attempts have been made to eradicate
this derogatory practice since Independence.
34. According to a report published by the LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT19. –
‘The Central Advisory Board for Harijan Welfare, initiated in 1956 under Pandit Gobind
Ballabh Pant, proposed a Centrally Sponsored Scheme to address the challenges faced by
sweepers and scavengers. Prior to this, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission in 1955 had
highlighted the sub-human conditions of these communities and urged for modern
sanitation methods. The Malkani Committee (1957) advocated for abolishing manual
scavenging, while another committee chaired by Prof. N.R. Malkani in 1965 examined the
abolition of customary rights. The Pandya Committee (1968-69) recommended
comprehensive national legislation to regulate working and living conditions, with similar
efforts seen at the state level in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, and Karnataka. In addition
to these various schemes like the National Scheme of Liberation and Rehabilitation of
Scavengers (NSLRS), and the National SafaiKaramcharis Finance and Development
Corporation (NSKFDC) etc. has been established for the welfare of Manual Scavengers.
16
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors, [1959]1SCR279.
17
Supra note 7
18
Ibid
19
Manual Scavengers: Welfare and Rehabilitation, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, Reference note. No. 18
Recommendations were given by the National Advisory Council in its resolution dated
23.10.2010 and "The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their
Rehabilitation Bill, 2012" was introduced in 2012.
35. Despite all these efforts the Manual scavengers continue to live a derogatory life. It was
held in the Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India &Ors. (2014)20that –
“It is undisputed that manual scavenging is a practice that continues to be employed in
various parts of the country. The employment of manual scavengers for the removal of
human excreta is an affront to human dignity and a blot on the national development
agenda. The continuing existence of this practice also underscores the failure of various
laws, including the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines
(Prohibition) Act, 1993, to eradicate this social evil.
ADVANCED ISSUE III
WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

PROTECT SANIATATION WORKERS AND TO PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS
OF THIS OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD, THEREBY UNDERMINING THE RIGHTS OF
SANITATION WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES VIOLATES ITS OBLIGATION
UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW?
36. Article 12 of the Indiana Constitution defines what constitutes the "State" for the
purposes of the Constitution. It outlines the entities that fall under the purview of the term
"State" when interpreting fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. This definition is crucial
because it clarifies that fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are enforceable not
only against the central and state governments but also against other entities and authorities
under their control within the territory of India.
37. As the writ petition filed by the NGO, Indiana Karamchari Safai Sangatan (IKSS) in the
previous issue dealt with the failure of municipal corporation to provide adequate safety
measures, which violates the Fundamental rights of Sanitation workers as mentioned in the
Constitution of Indiana as well as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of which
Indiana is a signatory. Now we will understand how the municipal corporation is not solely
20
Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India &Ors.2014 (11) SCC 224
responsible for the violation also other public bodies as a part of state also fails to fulfill their
obligation for the protection of Fundamental rights of Sanitation workers and their dependents.
3.1 Violation and Non-compliance of the Domestic Law:
38. The municipal corporation, classified as "State" under Article 12 of the Indiana
Constitution, must ensure the safety of sanitation workers. Failure to provide necessary safety
measures violates their fundamental rights to life and dignity (Article 21). Negligence in
documentation and ensuring safe conditions increases their liability. Arvind and Sathinagar
Municipal Corporations' failure to enforce safety regulations raises questions about violating
domestic law. Tragic cases like Pratyaksh and Rahul, sanitation workers who died due to unsafe
conditions, highlight this violation of fundamental rights under Part III of the Indiana
Constitution.
❖ Violation of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations: The cases of Pratyaksh
and Rahul highlight potential violations of occupational safety and health regulations.
They lacked proper safety gear, exposing them to hazards without protective
equipment. Work environments lacked necessary safety measures like ventilation and
precautions against dangers such as dangerous gases and drowning. Insufficient
training on safety protocols and hazard recognition was evident, as mandated by
regulations. Risk assessments addressing sanitation work hazards were not conducted,
and negligence in emergency response procedures left them vulnerable in life-
threatening situations.
39. These violations led to the tragic deaths of Pratyaksh and Rahul, indicating a failure by
municipal corporations to fulfill their obligations to safeguard sanitation workers' health and
safety, thus violating occupational safety and health regulations.
❖ Violation of Worker’s rights: In the case of Pratyaksh and Rahul, their rights as
workers were violated. They were exposed to hazardous conditions without
proper safety gear or measures, leading to their tragic deaths. Additionally, these
sanitation workers since ages faces this violation like low wages despite the risks
of their job, and inadequate compensation for workplace injuries. This highlights
a failure to provide a safe working environment, fair wages, and proper

compensation, undermining principles of fairness and justice in the workplace.
Overall, this case underscores the importance of upholding workers' rights to
ensure dignity and fair treatment for all employees.
❖ Violation of Right to life and Dignity: In the case of Pratyaksh and Rahul, the
failure to protect sanitation workers from occupational hazards violates their
fundamental rights to life and dignity. Exposed to dangerous conditions without
proper safety measures or equipment, their tragic deaths highlight a neglect of
their well-being in the workplace. Furthermore, the Protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993, which defines "human rights" to include the right to life, liberty,
equality, and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or international covenants,
also reinforces the obligation of the government to protect the health and well-
being of its citizens.
Case Law (Domestic): In India, the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of
India &Ors (2014)21 addressed the failure of the government to implement laws
banning manual scavenging, which predominantly affects sanitation workers. The
Supreme Court of India highlighted the violation of the constitutional rights to
dignity and equality.
3.2 Violation and Non-compliance of the International Law:
40. The failure of the Arvind and Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to enforce safety
regulations for sanitation workers raises concerns about potential violations of international law,
including the right to safe working conditions under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) and International Labour Organization (ILO) standards. The absence of accountability
for victims of occupational hazards may also contravene the right to an effective remedy under
international human rights law.
41. Governments must address these violations, enforce regulations, and ensure access to
justice and compensation for harmed workers. This failure not only undermines the dignity and
21
Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India &Ors (2014)
well-being of sanitation workers but also reflects a broader disregard for human rights
obligations under international law.
❖ Violation of Human Rights Obligations: Failure to protect the rights and dignity of
sanitation workers can constitute a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR). According to the UDHR, all individuals have the right to work in just
and favorable conditions, including fair wages and protection against unemployment.
Sanitation workers, however, often face unsafe working conditions without adequate
protective measures, fair compensation, or job security. This neglect by states to ensure a
safe and fair work environment for sanitation workers directly contradicts the principles
outlined in the UDHR.
❖ Violation of Right to Health:Under international law, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) recognizes the right to health as a fundamental human right.
Specifically, Article 25 of the UDHR states that everyone has the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one's family, including food,
clothing, housing, and medical care. Here the Sanitation workers have been denied this
right by not being provided with adequate safety measures while performing their duties,
leading to tragic consequences.
Case Law (International): In the case of Z v. Finland (1997)22, the European Court of Human
Rights held that the failure of the Finnish authorities to protect workers from exposure to
toxic chemicals in the workplace violated the right to life under Article 2 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
42. In summary, the municipal corporation, as a governmental authority responsible for the
welfare of its citizens, including sanitation workers, has a duty to ensure their safety and well-
being. Failure to provide adequate safety measures, negligence in maintaining documentation,
and disregarding the dignity of sanitation workers constitute violations of both domestic labour
laws and international human rights obligations. These violations undermine the rights of
sanitation workers and their families, highlighting the urgent need for effective enforcement
mechanisms and accountability measures.
22
Z v. Finland (1997)
3.3 Relevant Indian case laws to support the argument:

1. Occupational Safety and Health Regulations:
Held: In the case of Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen
(1960)23, the Supreme Court of India emphasized the importance of ensuring safety
measures in hazardous industries. The court held that employers have a duty to provide a
safe working environment for their employees, including sanitation workers, and failure
to do so could result in legal liability.
2. Worker Rights:
Held: In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000)24, the Delhi
High Court ruled in favor of female sanitation workers who were denied equal
pay for equal work. The court emphasized the principle of equal remuneration for
equal work, affirming the rights of sanitation workers to fair wages and equal
treatment under labor laws.
3. Right to Life and Dignity:
Held: In People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)25, the
Supreme Court of India recognized the right to livelihood as an integral part of the
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held
that the failure to provide adequate safeguards for workers' health and safety
violates their right to life and dignity.
4. Prohibition of Manual Scavenging:
The case of National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied
Workers & Others v. Union of India & Others (201426) addressed the issue of
manual scavenging, predominantly affecting sanitation workers. The Supreme
Court of India directed the government to take strict measures to eradicate manual
scavenging and provide rehabilitation and alternative employment to affected
workers. This case highlights the violation of fundamental rights and the
obligation of the state to protect sanitation workers from hazardous practices.
5. Right to Health and Environmental Justice:
23
Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1960)
24
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (2000)
25
Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982)
26
National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers & Others v. Union of India & Others
(2014
Held: In the case of Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)27, the Supreme
Court of India recognized the right to a clean environment as a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that individuals have
the right to live in a pollution-free environment conducive to health and well-
being. This case establishes the link between environmental justice, public health,
and the rights of workers, including sanitation workers, to a safe and healthy
workplace.
These additional Indian case laws further underscore the legal principles and obligations
regarding the protection of sanitation workers' rights, including safety, dignity, and health, under
domestic laws and constitutional provisions. They provide compelling evidence to support the
argument that the failure to enforce safety regulations and protect sanitation workers violates
both domestic and international legal standards.
27
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That, the writ petition filed by the Indiana KaramchariSafaiSanghatan (IKSS) is

maintainable before the High Court of Bomai.
2. That, to provide adequate compensation and support for the families of Pratyaksh and
Rahul and all deceased workers as per various ruling of this court.
3. That, to conduct comprehensive investigations into the deaths of Pratyaksh, Rahul, and
Mahesh, along with all sanitation workers who have tragically lost their lives. Those responsible
for the lack of safety gear, protective measures, and any negligence or misconduct must be held
accountable for these unfortunate incidents.
4. That, issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Sathinagar Municipal Corporations to

immediately implement and enforce adequate safety measures for sanitation workers, in
accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Indiana Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and as per Manual Scavenging Act, 2013.
5. That, Declaration of the municipal corporations' actions as unconstitutional and violative

of fundamental rights.
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, for this the
Petitioner shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

TC-30 (P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-30 (P)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC-30 (P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

IN THE MATTERS OF:

INDIANA KARAMCHARI SAFAI SANGATHANAND OTHERS .... PETITIONER

THE STATE OF BOMAI

SATHINAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIOJN ….RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/20__, ___/20__

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMAI

UNDER ARTICLE 226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICATION ............................................................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 8

ISSUES RAISED .......................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 13

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS MAINTAINABLE

1.3 Public Interest Litigation: .................................................................................................... 16

WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY THE

1|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

3.1 Violation and Non-compliance of the Domestic Law: ........................................................... 24

3.2 Violation and Non-compliance of the International Law: .................................................. 25

3.3 Relevant Indian case laws to support the argument: ........................................................... 27

2|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

S.No. ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION

10. Prohibition of Employment As

3|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

14. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

4|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Safai Karmachari Andolan v. Union of India ................................................................................. 7

STATUTES, ACTS AND RULES

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

1. Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, 1948

5|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. The Covenant On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights 1966

BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES

1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8thEd, 2022)

2. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution Of India, (16th Ed, 2021)

3. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, (14thEd, 2023)

4. R.P.Kataria and Salah Uddin, Commentary on Human Rights( 3rd Ed,2018)

6|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Article 226 in Constitution of Indiana

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

7|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

9|MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES BY

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

2. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SAFETY MEASURES

(UDHR). Additionally, the failure of the municipal corporation to provide adequate

3. WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS

WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT IS

1.3 Public Interest Litigation:

ADVANCED ISSUE III

WHETHER THE STATE FAILURE’S TO ENFORCE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND

3.1 Violation and Non-compliance of the Domestic Law:

a failure to provide a safe working environment, fair wages, and proper

3.2 Violation and Non-compliance of the International Law:

WRIT PETITION NOS. _/20, _/20