DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNITY AND RIGHTS OF , SEWERAGE AND ALLIED WORKERS & Ors.

. 1.3. This Court has time and again emphasized the importance of the petitions filed pro bono publico for protection of the rights of less fortunate and vulnerable C sections of the society. What the High Court has done by entertaining the writ petition and issuing directions for protection of the persons employed to do work relating to sewage operations is part of its obligation to do justice to the disadvantaged and poor sections of the society. The superior Courts will be failing in their constitutional D duty if they decline to entertain petitions filed by genuine social groups, NGOs and social workers for espousin{) . the cause of those who are.deprived of the basic rights available to every human being, what to say of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. It E is the duty of the judicial constituent of the State like its political and executive constituents to protect the rights of every citizen and every individual and ensure that everyone is able to live with dignity. Given the option, no one would like to enter the manhole of sewage system F for cleaning purposes, but there are people who are forced to undertake such hazardous jobs with the hope that at the end of the day they will be able to make some money and feed. their family. They risk their lives for the comfort of others. Unfortunately, for last few decades, a G substantial segment of the urban society has become insensitive to the plight of the poor and downtrodden including those, who, on account of sheer economic compulsions, undertake jobs/works which are inherently H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 12 S.C.R. B and cranes. A dangerous to life. People belonging to this segment do not want to understand why a person is made to enter manhole without safety gears and proper equipments. They look the other way when the body of a worker who dies in the manhole is taken out with the help of ropes In this scenario, the Courts are not only entitled but are under constitutional obligation to take cognizance of the issues relating to the lives of the people who are forced to undertake jobs which are hazardous and dangerous to life. It will be a tragic and sad day when c the superior Courts will shut their doors for those, who without any motive for personal gain or other extraneous reasons, come forward to seek protection and enforcement of the legal and constitutional rights of the poor, downtrodden and disadvantaged sections of the If the system can devote hours, days and months to hear the elitist class of eminent advocates who are engaged by those who are accused of evading payment of taxes and duties or otherwise causing loss to public exchequer or who are accused of committing E heinous crimes like murder, rape, dowry death, kidnapping, abduction and even acts of terrorism or who come forward with the grievance that their fundamental right to equality has been violated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities in contractual matters, some time can always be devoted for hearing the grievance of F vast majority of silent sufferers whose cause is espoused by bodies like respondent No.1. [Paras 16, 20] [61-H; 62- A; 67-D-H; 68-A-F] 0 society. People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India G (1982) 3 SCC 235: 1983 (1) SCR 456; Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98: 1979 (3) SCR 532; Municipal Council, Rat/am v. Vardhichan (1980) 4 SCC 162: 1981 (1) SCR 97; State of Uttarancha/ v. Ba/want Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402: 2010 (1) SCR 678 - relied on. H DELHI JAL BOARD v. NATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR DIGNl1Y 41 Re: Question No.2: A

2.1. There have been instances in which this Court has exercised its-power under Article 32 read with Article 142 and issued guidelines and directions to fill the vacuum and for ensuring justice to the common man and 8 effective exercise of fundamental rights by the citizens. [Para 21] [68-G-H; 69-A]

2.2. It cannot be said that by issuing directions, the High Court has assumed the legislative power of the State. What the High Court has done is nothing except C to ensure that those employed/engaged for doing work which is inherently hazardous and dangerous to life are provided with life saving equipments and the employer takes care of their safety and health. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities cannot absolve themselves of D the responsibility to put in place effective mechanism for ensuring safety of the workers employed for maintaining and c.leaning the sewage system. The human beings who are employed for doing the work in the sewers cannot be treated as mechanical robots, who may not be E affected by poisonous gases in the manholes. The State and its agencies/instrumentalities or the contractors engaged by them are under a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety of the persons who are asked to undertake hazardous jobs. The argument of choice and F contractual freedom is not available to the appellant and the like for contesting the issues raised by respondent No.1. [Para 24] [71-F-H; 72-A-B]