The distinction between 'manual scavenging' and 'hazardous cleaning' has diluted State accountability. Discuss.

The PEMSR Act, 2013 defines manual scavenging as handling excreta from insanitary latrines. It treats the cleaning of sewers and septic tanks without protective gear as a separate category, "hazardous cleaning" [1]. As a result, the State reports no manual scavenging, yet 332 workers died in sewers between January 2021 and June 2026 [2]. The distinction has weakened accountability, but it has not removed it.

How the distinction dilutes accountability

• Deaths drop out of view: Official replies say district surveys found no manual scavenging. Sewer deaths are recorded under a separate heading [2], so the problem looks solved.
• Less pressure to enforce: Once the practice is labelled "eliminated", there is little pressure to inspect municipalities, contractors and private establishments.
• Legal loophole: Liability depends on whether the employer supplied protective gear and safety precautions [1]. Handing out token gear can shift the blame onto the worker.
• Outsourcing hides the employer: Contract chains blur who is responsible. In Dr. Balram Singh v. UoI (2023), the Supreme Court had to order contract cancellation and monetary liability for deaths in outsourced work [3].
• Caste roots hidden: Treating the work only as a safety issue hides its caste roots. That weakens the link to Article 17 (abolition of untouchability) and Article 21 (life with dignity).

Counter-view: accountability persists

• Legal ban: The Act still bars any person or agency from employing anyone for hazardous cleaning [1]. The separate category allows rules aimed specifically at mechanised cleaning.
• Judicial oversight: Balram Singh raised compensation for a sewer death to ₹30 lakh [3]. The Ministry reports paying this to victims' families in compliance with the order [4].
• Welfare scheme: NAMASTE formalises sewer and septic-tank work through trained, equipped workers [5]. Its stated goal is zero fatalities [6].
• Data disclosure: Deaths are still counted with NCSK data and reported to Parliament [2].

The distinction is not wrong in itself. The problem is that it has become a statistical shield. The way forward:

• One definition covering any human entry into sewers, septic tanks or septage plants, as the Ministry has proposed [7].
• Mandatory mechanisation.
• Strict liability for contractors.
• Independent NCSK audits of every death.

Article 21's promise of dignity and SDG 8.8 on safe workplaces demand zero sewer deaths, not just zero "scavenging" deaths.