SC raps Haryana government for failing to act on manual scavenging worker widow's plea
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Chief Secretary of the Haryana government, summoning his personal appearance within four weeks to explain the alleged non-compliance with the court's earlier directions regarding a representation filed by Asha — the widow of a sewer worker who died in 2022 while cleaning a sewer.
The bench noted on record that it appeared the State of Haryana had neither acted on the Supreme Court's 3 January order nor considered the representation submitted by the petitioner.
'Issue notice, returnable on May 9. The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, is to personally remain present on the next date of hearing so as to make us understand why our order has not been considered and in what manner the representation of January 6 (received by the government on January 9) has been looked into,' the bench said in its order dated 25 April.
Asha alleged that, despite submitting multiple representations in 2023 and 2024 seeking statutory compensation of ₹30 lakh—in line with the Supreme Court's judgment in the
Balram Singh
case—she had received no payment.
She subsequently filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court through her counsel, Pawan Reley and others. On 3 January 2025, the court directed the Haryana government to take a decision on the matter.
Following the order, Asha submitted a fresh representation to the Chief Secretary on 6 January, which was delivered on 9 January. However, no action has since been taken by the state government.
Taking serious note of the non-compliance, the top court has now sought the Chief Secretary's personal presence and a detailed explanation as to why the representation was not decided and why compensation has not been released.
The incident in question occurred in 2022, when Asha's husband died after being exposed to hazardous conditions and inhaling poisonous gases while cleaning a sewer. Despite this, Asha has not received any rehabilitation or compensation from the Haryana government, as mandated under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
'That multiple representations were submitted to the government of Haryana, requesting adequate compensation of ₹30,00,000/- for his client, in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in
Balram Singh versus Union of India & Others
, is not complied with,' Reley said in the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Cash haul row: Justice Yashwant Varma left with only one option - how can he avoid impeachment?
File photo: Justice Yashwant Varma (Picture credit: ANI) NEW DELHI: Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court faces the prospect of impeachment in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament after being indicted in a high-profile corruption case. According to officials cited by news agency PTI, resignation remains his only option to avoid a Parliamentary motion for removal, which, if passed, would strip him of pension and retirement benefits. Justice Varma came under scrutiny after a fire at his Delhi residence in March led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of unaccounted cash in the outhouse. Though he denied knowledge of the money, a Supreme Court-appointed in-house panel, led by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, found him culpable after recording witness statements and Varma's own deposition. Based on this report, Justice Khanna urged the President and Prime Minister to initiate his removal, PTI reported. As per Article 217 of the Constitution, a High Court judge may resign by writing to the President. The resignation becomes valid without requiring formal acceptance. If a judge resigns, they retain post-retirement entitlements. However, if removed by Parliament, they lose all such benefits. In Parliament, a motion for removal must be supported by at least 50 Rajya Sabha or 100 Lok Sabha members. Once admitted, the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 mandates a fresh three-member committee, including a Supreme Court judge, a High Court chief justice, and a distinguished jurist, to investigate the charges. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Device Made My Power Bill Drop Overnight elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Pre-Order Undo However, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju pointed out that the case is 'slightly different' because an in-house committee has already concluded its probe. 'It cannot be brushed aside,' Rijiju was quoted as saying by PTI, adding that reconciling the existing report with the statutory inquiry process will be a matter for the Speaker or Chairman to decide. Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar, while meeting members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, expressed dismay over the lack of a criminal investigation into the matter. 'A very painful incident happened... There was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted and illegal,' he said. Dhankhar criticised the judiciary's internal mechanism for shielding its members from FIRs, saying, 'Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered.' Justice Varma has since been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been allotted any judicial duties. Rijiju has begun consultations with political parties to build consensus on the motion, which could be the first impeachment to be taken up in the new Parliament building. The Monsoon session of Parliament is scheduled from July 21 to August 12.
New Indian Express
11 hours ago
- New Indian Express
With SC case still pending, Assam man 'pushed' into Bangladesh returns home
GUWAHATI: Khairul Islam has been very busy for the past three days responding to phone calls from friends and acquaintances. This former schoolteacher from central Assam's Morigaon district was pushed into Bangladesh along with 13 other 'illegal immigrants' on May 24. He returned home two days ago after, what he claimed, the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) handed him and six others back to India, stating that they are not Bangladeshi nationals. Islam, who is in his fifties, was declared a foreigner by a foreigners' tribunal in 2018. He challenged this in the Gauhati High Court but it upheld the tribunal's judgment. Foreigners' tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies which deal with the cases of suspected foreigners. After he lost his case in the High Court, the police arrested him and sent him to a detention centre. He walked out on bail after two years in 2020 when the Supreme Court issued an order to decongest jails in the wake of Covid pandemic. Islam told this newspaper on Saturday that he had then moved the Supreme Court and his case is still pending. He lamented that he was deported although the apex court is yet to deliver a judgment. He said he had spent two days in Bangladesh and he did not face any problem there. 'The BGB had formally handed seven of us over to the BSF. The BSF did not protest it,' Islam said. 'I have no idea if the remaining seven are in Bangladesh or India,' he added. Islam said following his handover, he was under the care of Assam Police until returning home two days ago. 'The joys of my family members knew no bounds when I arrived home. I am feeling very relaxed now. I celebrated Eid. I had no idea that I would be able to celebrate Eid at home after deportation,' he said. Meanwhile, CM Himanta Biswa Sarma has said the process of identifying foreigners will now move at a faster pace.
Hindustan Times
13 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Exploring old law allowing ‘push back': Sarma
The Assam government is looking into the details of 'an old law' that will allow it to 'push back' infiltrators without having to mandatorily approach foreigners tribunals, chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on Saturday. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a programme in Nalbari, Sarma said that a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing a case on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, had said that there is no legal requirement for the Assam government to always approach the judiciary in order to identify foreigners. 'There exists an immigrants expel order, which is an old law. The Supreme Court has said that this law is in force and a deputy commissioner can give permission for immediate pushback under it,' he maintained. 'For whatever reason, our lawyers had not informed us and we too didn't know about it. The entire matter has come to light in the last few days. We will now discuss it further,' he added. The chief minister said pushing back illegal migrants will continue, adding that the process of identifying foreigners, which had been paused due to NRC-related matters, will now be accelerated. 'And when the identification of a foreigner happens, there will be no need to send the case to any tribunal. We will directly push them back. We have been preparing for it,' he added. Sarma said the process of pushback will continue, though no person with a case pending before the court will be sent back. His comments came even as the state witnessed protests over 'harassment' of minorities in the name of detecting illegal immigrants. Members and supporters of the All Assam Minority Students' Union (AAMSU) wore black badges and displayed placards against the purported recent pushback of Bangladeshis in the state. They carried out the protest in different parts, including Chirang and Jogighopa, after Eid namaz.
