Delhi Public Works Department Posts Pictures Of Workers Entering Drain. Then Deletes
Ahead of the monsoon, the PWD is clearing drains and removing obstructions from roads across Delhi to prevent waterlogging.
The disturbing images, of labourers surrounded by filth, allowed the opposition to target the government.
Despite Supreme Court directives and existing laws, manual scavenging continues in various parts of the country.
The court has repeatedly stressed the importance of ensuring worker safety and prohibiting manual handling of waste.
"The BJP government has always exploited Dalits and the poor. Look at how manual scavenging is being carried out. Legal action should be taken against this," Delhi AAP president Saurabh Bharadwaj posted.
Soon after, the PWD deleted the post.
When NDTV questioned Chief Minister Rekha Gupta as to why manual scavenging was still taking place in Delhi despite Supreme Court directives, she said, "The government is preparing for the monsoon. In some areas, it's not possible to use machines, so labourers have been deployed. However, the Delhi government is working in accordance with court orders."
A worker recently died while cleaning a drain linked to the Delhi Jal Board. According to Government of India data, 377 people died during drain cleaning between 2019 and 2023.
In Delhi alone, 72 deaths occurred during cleaning activities between 2013 and 2024, as per the National Commission for Safai Karamchari.
What was the Supreme Court's ruling?
In a landmark 2014 ruling, the Supreme Court issued a series of directives to stop manual cleaning of waste and sewage. The court declared that no labourer should be made to clean dangerous sewers.
Workers should not be sent into sewer lines without proper safety equipment, it said. The law provides for strict punishment against violators.
The court instructed all states and union territories to implement the 2013 law aimed at ending the practice of manual scavenging and ensuring rehabilitation for the victims.
While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the central government enacted the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013.
The petitioners demanded protection of their right to life and equality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
EC uploads category & booth-wise names removed from draft rolls
Patna: The Election Commission (EC) has released and uploaded constituency, category and polling booth wise list with reasons of all the 65 lakh voters whose names have been removed from the draft voter list after the special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, said Bihar chief electoral officer (CEO) Vinod Singh Gunjiyal on Monday. The EC also said none of the 12 registered political parties with their 1.60 lakh booth level agents named by them had so far submitted even a single claim/objection for including or removing names in the electoral rolls. It, however, added that 45,616 people individually submitted their claims and 1,52,651 have applied for adding their names in the voter list. He said the list can be seen on the EC website and any dissatisfied person can present his or her claim with a photocopy of the Aadhaar card, he said. Gunjiyal, in a meeting held through videoconferencing, reviewed the district-wise information about the action taken as per the Supreme Court order and booth-wise publication of the names of all 65 lakh removed voters. The EC said the names that have been removed from the draft voter list fall under the ASD (absentee, shifted, dead) category. These include deceased voters, transferred voters, absent or double registered voters. Earlier, the list of 65 lakh names removed from the draft voter list of Bihar was uploaded booth-wise and category-wise to the websites of the districts. "In the light of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on Aug 14…, it is hereby notified that the list of such electors whose names were included in the electoral roll of the year 2025 (before the draft publication) but are not included in the draft roll published on Aug 1, along with reasons (deceased/permanently shifted/absent/repeated entry), has been published on the websites of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, and all district election officers of the state," the CEO press statement states. "All such electors, whose names are not included in the draft roll, may obtain information about their entry and the reasons thereof by using their EPIC number in the published list. The list relating to such electors not included in the draft roll has also been displayed at the offices of all blocks, panchayats, urban local bodies, and at the polling stations. Through these, such electors can obtain information regarding their entries along with the reasons. Any person dissatisfied may file a claim along with a copy of their Aadhaar card," Gunjiyal stated. Chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar said this action has been taken within 56 hours of the Supreme Court's direction. The apex court had directed the EC to publish by Aug 19 the district-wise list and clearly state the reasons for the deletion of the names. Apart from this, the Supreme Court also told the EC to put up a booth-wise list of the removed voters in the office of the district election officer (DEO) and should be published on TV and in newspapers. The EC will also have to file a detailed report by Aug 22. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Cash-for-jobs case: SC orders Partha Chatterjee's release with condition
The Supreme Court on Monday said that former West Bengal education minister Partha Chatterjee should be released on bail in the cash-for-jobs case being probed by CBI, but after the trial court records statements of material witnesses. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh said the statements must be recorded within two months. It noted that Chatterjee had been in jail for nearly three years and his continued incarceration would be tantamount to travesty of justice. The bench also granted bail to Subiresh Bhattacharya and Shantiprasad Sinha. The duo held positions in West Bengal's education bodies during the period of the alleged scandal. The top court also ordered that the charges should be framed within four weeks against public servants against whom sanction for prosecution has been accorded under relevant sections of Prevention of Corruption Act . by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 15 Most Beautiful Women in the World Undo As regards accused against whom sanction has not been accorded, charges will be framed for only IPC offences, the bench said. The case pertains to recruitment irregularities which allegedly took place when Chatterjee was West Bengal's education minister. He was holding other ministerial portfolios when he was arrested in 2022, but was sacked from the state Cabinet and suspended from Trinamool shortly after his arrest. CBI has alleged that Chatterjee was the mastermind behind the scandal and that he manipulated the recruitment process. Live Events His bail plea was rejected by the Calcutta High Court in December 2024, prompting the current appeal in SC.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
How Constitution shields Chief Election Commissioner from arbitrary removal
Amid growing friction between the Congress-led Opposition and the Election Commission of India (ECI), India Today has learnt that the Opposition is considering initiating a formal notice of removal against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. This unprecedented move follows allegations by Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and others, accusing the Election Commission of India of large-scale 'vote theft' and procedural irregularities, especially during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar and the conduct of the 2024 Lok Sabha development raises questions about the removal process of a Chief Election Commissioner and the legal framework that governs office of the Chief Election Commissioner is a high constitutional post, entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring free and fair elections in the country. Given its importance, the Constitution of India provides a strong safeguard for the independence and autonomy of this office, laying down a removal process that is as stringent as that for a judge of the Supreme ON OUSTING OF CEC The primary provision governing the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner is articulated in Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India. Article 324(5) of the Constitution states, in relevant part — "...the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court..."To understand the process, one must examine Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which outlines how a Supreme Court judge may be removed. According to this provision, a judge can be removed only by an order of the President, following an address passed by each House of Parliament. The address must be supported by both an absolute majority of the total membership of the House and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. Removal is permitted only on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.'The term 'proved' is crucial, as it implies that a formal enquiry must precede any parliamentary action. A similar process applies to the Chief Election investigation and enquiry mechanism is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Article 124(4) of the Constitution says "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."advertisementAlthough the Constitution does not define 'misbehaviour,' it is generally understood to include wilful misconduct, corruption, moral turpitude, abuse of office, or repeated dereliction of duty. Misbehaviour must be deliberate and sustained, not accidental or isolated. Cumulative acts that reflect a pattern may also qualify.'Incapacity,' on the other hand, refers to physical or mental conditions that render an official unfit to discharge their begin the removal process, a motion must first be introduced in either House of Parliament. It requires signatures from at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, depending on the House in which it is submitted, the Speaker (in the Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (in the Rajya Sabha) decides whether to admit the motion. Admission does not imply guilt, but is necessary to initiate further proceedings. If admitted, a three-member enquiry committee is constituted. This committee must include a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished committee investigates the charges, frames specific allegations, and gives the CEC an opportunity to respond. Once the enquiry is completed, the committee submits its findings to the presiding officer of the House where the motion was the committee finds no evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity, the process ends and the motion is dropped. If the findings support the charges, the motion is presented to both Houses of Parliament along with the Houses must then debate and pass the motion with the required special majority. If the motion passes in both Houses during the same session, an address is sent to the President of India, who is constitutionally bound to remove the Chief Election is important to note that this removal mechanism is separate from other ways in which the CEC may vacate office. As per Section 4 of the Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, the term of office for a CEC is six years or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier. The CEC may also resign voluntarily by submitting a written resignation to the President.- Ends
