| Select IAS IPS Daily Current Affairs Analysis | IAS IPS Daily Current Affairs Analysis |
|---|
Headline: 1978 ‘Industry’ Definition Void Under New Code, Says SC
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
Landmark Ruling: A nine-member Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the nearly half-century-old expansive interpretation of ‘industry’ — which previously granted workers stronger labour rights and protection — will not apply under the new Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading the Bench, stated that the 1978 judgment and its conclusion would not act as the “sheet anchor” or foundation for any future interpretation of Section 2(p) of the IRC.
The 1978 Precedent: The reference before the Constitution Bench was centred around a broad definition given to ‘industry’ in a 1978 seven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa case. This 48-year-old verdict had enabled workers employed in a wide range of jobs to have legal recourse, including collective bargaining, against unfair labour practices by employers.
The Triple Test: The 1978 judgment introduced a ‘triple test’ which laid down conditions for an activity to be considered an ‘industry’: (i) systematic or organised activity, (ii) operated on the basis of employer-employee cooperation, and (iii) dealing in the production of goods and services to satisfy human wants. The judgment had brought even hospitals, educational institutions, and municipalities within the fold of ‘industry’.
Majority Opinion: The majority opinion on this particular point was authored by CJI Surya Kant, supported by Justices Satish Chandra Sharma, Alok Aradhe, Vipul M. Pancholi, with Justices P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi expressing agreement in their separate opinions. The majority held that ‘industry’ under Section 2(p) of the IRC would not be “burdened” by the 1978 interpretation of Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act.
Dissenting Views: Justices B.V. Nagarathna, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and S.V.N. Bhatti, while agreeing that the 1978 interpretation of ‘industry’ would not apply to the IRC, argued that the majority had not settled the issue conclusively. Justice Nagarathna specifically questioned whether the ruling would be given effect from 2020 or merely serve as a declaration for the future.
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: Polity & Governance – Labour reforms, Industrial relations.
GS Paper II: Judiciary – Judicial interpretation, Constitutional Bench.
GS Paper III: Economic Development – Labour codes, Employment.
GS Paper II: Constitution – Article 142, Interpretation of statutes.
GS Paper II: Governance – Labour rights, Social justice.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. The 1978 Precedent: Bangalore Water Supply v. R. Rajappa
| Aspect | Details |
| Case | Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa (1978) |
| Bench | Seven-judge Constitution Bench |
| Key Author | Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer |
| Interpretation | Broad and expansive definition of ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 |
| Triple Test | (i) Systematic/organised activity; (ii) Employer-employee cooperation; (iii) Production of goods/services to satisfy human wants |
| Coverage | Brought hospitals, educational institutions, and municipalities within the fold of ‘industry’ |
| Exemptions | Only core sovereign activities (judiciary, law and order, defence, etc.) were exempted |
B. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020
| Aspect | Details |
| Enactment | Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (came into force in November 2025) |
| Replaces | Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (partially) |
| Definition | Section 2(p) defines ‘industry’ under the new code |
| Interpretation | The SC held that the 1978 interpretation would not “burden” Section 2(p) |
C. The Supreme Court’s Ruling
| Aspect | Details |
| Bench | Nine-judge Constitution Bench |
| Majority Opinion | CJI Surya Kant (authored), supported by Justices Satish Chandra Sharma, Alok Aradhe, Vipul M. Pancholi, P.S. Narasimha, and Joymalya Bagchi |
| Key Holding | 1978 interpretation of ‘industry’ will not apply to Section 2(p) of the IRC |
| Reasoning | The new code provides a “clean slate” for interpreting ‘industry’ based on its own text and context |
| Disagreement | Justices Nagarathna, Mishra, and Bhatti argued that the majority had not settled the issue conclusively |
D. Differing Opinions Among the Bench
| Judge | Position |
| CJI Surya Kant | 1978 judgment not the “sheet anchor” for interpreting Section 2(p) of IRC |
| Justice P.S. Narasimha | Agreed with CJI; authoritative interpretation of 2(j) lost immediacy with IRC |
| Justice Joymalya Bagchi | Agreed with CJI on validity of reference, but held that the 1978 judgment correctly determined the scope and ambit of ‘industry’ |
| Justice B.V. Nagarathna | Agreed that 1978 interpretation won’t apply to IRC, but questioned whether ruling would be given effect from 2020 or merely serve as future declaration |
| Justices Mishra and Bhatti | Echoed Justice Nagarathna’s concern that the majority had not conclusively resolved the issue |
E. Significance and Implications
| Dimension | Implications |
| Labour Rights | The ruling may narrow the scope of ‘industry’, potentially limiting workers’ ability to claim labour rights and legal recourse against unfair practices |
| Industrial Relations | The new code provides a fresh start for interpreting ‘industry’, unburdened by the 1978 precedent |
| Sovereign Functions | The 1978 exemption for core sovereign activities may be re-evaluated under the new code |
| Pending Cases | CJI clarified that the ruling should not be used to displace the governing legal position on pending proceedings or dig up decided cases |
| Effective Date | Uncertainty remains on whether the ruling applies from 2020 or only as a future declaration |
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
Industrial Relations Code, 2020: One of the four labour codes consolidating India’s labour laws, replacing the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and other related laws.
Section 2(j) (IDA, 1947): The definition of ‘industry’ under the old Industrial Disputes Act, expansively interpreted in the 1978 judgment.
Section 2(p) (IRC): The definition of ‘industry’ under the new Industrial Relations Code.
Triple Test: The three conditions laid down in the 1978 judgment for an activity to be considered an ‘industry’.
Bangalore Water Supply v. R. Rajappa: The 1978 landmark judgment that broadly defined ‘industry’.
Labour Code: A consolidated law on a specific area of labour regulation; India has four labour codes.
Constitution Bench: A bench of five or more judges of the Supreme Court formed to decide legal questions of significant constitutional importance.
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (Polity): “The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1978 expansive interpretation of ‘industry’ will not apply under the new Industrial Relations Code. Analyse the implications of this judgment for labour rights and industrial relations in India.”
GS Paper III (Economic Development): “Labour codes have been introduced to simplify and modernise India’s labour regulations. Discuss the implications of the SC ruling for the implementation of the Industrial Relations Code.”
GS Paper II (Judiciary): “The nine-judge Bench ruling on the interpretation of ‘industry’ highlights the importance of judicial interpretation in labour law. Critically examine the role of the judiciary in shaping labour rights.”
GS Paper II (Governance): “The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, represents a significant reform in India’s labour regulatory framework. Evaluate the impact of the SC ruling on the code’s implementation.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Labour Reforms: The ruling is part of the broader labour reform agenda, which aims to simplify and modernise India’s labour laws.
Judicial Interpretation: The case highlights the tension between judicial precedent and legislative intent, with the SC holding that new laws must be interpreted on their own text and context.
Workers’ Rights: The ruling may narrow the scope of labour rights, as the 1978 interpretation had significantly expanded the definition of ‘industry’.
Federalism: Labour is a subject in the Concurrent List, and the ruling has implications for both central and state labour laws.
Social Justice: The 1978 judgment had been seen as a progressive interpretation that protected workers’ rights; the ruling marks a departure from that approach.
Conclusion & Way Forward
The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench ruling that the 1978 interpretation of ‘industry’ will not apply under the new Industrial Relations Code marks a significant shift in India’s labour law jurisprudence. The 1978 Bangalore Water Supply v. R. Rajappa judgment had expansively defined ‘industry’, bringing hospitals, educational institutions, and municipalities within its fold and enabling workers to claim labour rights . The new ruling holds that ‘industry’ under Section 2(p) of the IRC must be interpreted on a clean slate, unburdened by the 1978 precedent .
While the majority opinion, authored by CJI Surya Kant, held that the 1978 judgment would not act as the “sheet anchor” for future interpretation, there were differing opinions within the Bench. Justices Nagarathna, Mishra, and Bhatti questioned whether the ruling would be given effect from 2020 or merely serve as a future declaration . Justice Bagchi, while agreeing with the CJI on the validity of the reference, held that the 1978 judgment correctly determined the scope and ambit of ‘industry’ .
The ruling has significant implications for labour rights, industrial relations, and the interpretation of labour codes in India. The scope of ‘industry’ under the new code will now be determined based on its “own text and context,” potentially narrowing the definition and limiting workers’ access to legal recourse .
The Way Forward
- Clarification of Scope: The precise scope of ‘industry’ under Section 2(p) of the IRC remains to be determined through future judicial interpretation.
- Effective Date: The court needs to clarify whether the ruling applies from 2020 (when the IRC was enacted) or only as a future declaration.
- Pending Cases: The CJI’s clarification that the ruling should not displace the governing legal position on pending proceedings ensures continuity for ongoing disputes.
- Labour Policy: The government may need to provide clarity on the coverage of the IRC through notifications or rules.
- Workers’ Rights: The ruling may necessitate legislative amendments to ensure that workers’ rights are adequately protected under the new code.
The ruling reflects the evolving nature of India’s labour laws and the judiciary’s role in interpreting them. As the new labour codes are implemented, the interpretation of key terms like ‘industry’ will continue to shape the rights and protections available to workers.
Headline: Collectors Empowered to Grant Citizenship Under CAA
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
New Citizenship Framework: The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has transferred the processing of pending citizenship applications under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, from Empowered Committees to District Collectors in eight States and Union Territories. The order, issued on August 19, 2026, authorises Collectors in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam (except tribal areas), Tripura (except tribal areas), Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh to grant naturalised citizenship .
Rule Amendments: The Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified on August 19, empower Collectors in these jurisdictions to receive, scrutinise, and dispose of applications for registration or naturalisation under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act. The Collector is required to verify documents and determine eligibility .
Key Change: The order makes the March 11, 2024 MHA notification implementing the Citizenship Amendment Rules inapplicable to these jurisdictions, centralising the process with District Collectors instead of multi-agency Empowered Committees .
CAA Context: The CAA provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants from six non-Muslim communities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian) from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before December 31, 2014 . The first set of citizenship certificates under the CAA was given to 14 applicants in May 2024 .
Political Significance: The order is significant as it comes after the BJP came to power in West Bengal, where the CAA was strongly opposed by the previous TMC government. The earlier Empowered Committee structure was created to bypass the State government’s role in processing applications .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: Polity & Governance – Citizenship, Constitutional provisions, Centre-State relations.
GS Paper II: Constitution – Article 11, Citizenship Act, 1955.
GS Paper II: Governance – Government policies, Centre-State relations.
GS Paper II: International Relations – Refugees, Neighbourhood policy.
GS Paper I: Society – Migration, Minorities, Secularism.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. The New Framework: Key Features
| Aspect | Old Framework | New Framework |
| Authority | Empowered Committees (Central government officials from Census, IB, Postal Dept.) | District Collectors |
| States/UTs | All States/UTs | Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam (except tribal), Tripura (except tribal), J&K, Ladakh |
| Legal Basis | March 11, 2024 CAA Rules | Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 |
| Function | Multi-agency committee to clear applications | Single authority (Collector) to receive, scrutinise, and dispose of applications |
B. The CAA: Key Provisions
| Aspect | Details |
| Eligible Communities | Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian |
| Eligible Countries | Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh |
| Cut-off Date | December 31, 2014 (entry before this date) |
| Documentation | Undocumented migrants without valid documents or with expired visas |
| Naturalisation | Grant of citizenship through registration or naturalisation |
| Section 6B | Special provision for grant of citizenship to eligible migrants |
C. Empowered Committees vs. District Collectors
| Aspect | Empowered Committees | District Collectors |
| Composition | Multiple Central agencies (Census, IB, Postal) | Single authority (Collector) |
| Decision Process | Multi-agency coordination | Single-authority decision |
| State Role | Bypassed | Limited to logistics (office space, police verification) |
| Efficiency | Could be slower due to multiple agencies | Potentially faster |
D. Implementation Timeline
| Date | Event |
| 2019 | CAA passed by Parliament |
| March 11, 2024 | MHA notification implementing CAA Rules |
| May 2024 | First set of citizenship certificates given to 14 applicants |
| April 2026 | Empowered Committees constituted to bypass State government |
| August 19, 2026 | MHA order transferring powers to District Collectors |
E. Federalism and Centre-State Relations
| Aspect | Details |
| Citizenship Subject | Citizenship is a subject in the Union List (Entry 17, List I), giving the Central government exclusive authority |
| State’s Role | Limited to providing logistics (office space, police verification) |
| West Bengal Context | The Empowered Committees were created to bypass the TMC government’s opposition |
| BJP’s West Bengal Win | The August 19 order comes after BJP came to power in West Bengal |
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019): An Act to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, to provide citizenship to undocumented migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh belonging to six non-Muslim communities.
Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026: The rules notified on August 19, 2026, empowering District Collectors to process CAA applications.
Section 6B: A special provision under the Citizenship Act, 1955, introduced by the CAA for the grant of citizenship to eligible migrants.
Empowered Committees: Multi-agency committees comprising officials from Census, IB, and Postal Departments, previously responsible for processing CAA applications.
Union List: The list of subjects under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution where Parliament has exclusive power to legislate, including citizenship.
Naturalisation: The legal process through which a foreign national becomes a citizen of a country.
Non-Muslim Communities: The six communities eligible under the CAA: Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian.
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (Polity): “The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has transferred the processing of CAA applications from Empowered Committees to District Collectors. Analyse the constitutional and administrative implications of this decision.”
GS Paper II (Governance): “The CAA has been a contentious issue, with significant Centre-State tensions. Discuss the federal dimensions of the CAA implementation with reference to the new order.”
GS Paper II (Constitution): “Citizenship is a subject in the Union List. Examine the constitutional framework for citizenship in India and the role of the states.”
GS Paper II (International Relations): “The CAA has implications for India’s neighbourhood policy and its treatment of refugees. Discuss India’s approach to undocumented migrants from neighbouring countries.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Citizenship and Nationalism: The CAA has been at the centre of debates about citizenship, nationalism, and the treatment of minorities in India.
Federalism: The issue highlights the tension between the Centre’s exclusive power over citizenship and the states’ administrative role in implementing the law.
Secularism: Critics have argued that the CAA violates the secular principles of the Constitution by granting citizenship on the basis of religion.
Refugee Policy: India is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and its approach to undocumented migrants is governed by domestic law.
Political Context: The August 19 order comes after the BJP came to power in West Bengal, where the CAA had been strongly opposed.
Conclusion & Way Forward
The MHA’s August 19, 2026 order transferring the processing of CAA applications from Empowered Committees to District Collectors in eight States and UTs marks a significant shift in the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act. The order, accompanied by the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, empowers Collectors to receive, scrutinise, and dispose of applications under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, while making the earlier March 11, 2024 notification inapplicable in these jurisdictions .
The CAA provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh belonging to six non-Muslim communities who entered India before December 31, 2014 . The first set of citizenship certificates under the CAA was granted in May 2024 . The new order centralises the decision-making process with District Collectors, potentially expediting the processing of applications .
The order is particularly significant in West Bengal, where the CAA was strongly opposed by the previous TMC government, and the Empowered Committees were created to bypass the State government’s role . The BJP’s victory in West Bengal has enabled this administrative shift .
The Way Forward
- Expedited Processing: The new framework may expedite the processing of pending citizenship applications.
- Clear Guidelines: The Ministry should issue clear guidelines to Collectors on the verification process and eligibility criteria.
- Appeals Mechanism: Establish a clear mechanism for appeals against decisions made by Collectors.
- Monitoring: Ensure robust monitoring to prevent misuse and ensure transparency in the process.
- Legal Challenges: Be prepared to address any legal challenges to the new rules.
- State Cooperation: Ensure states provide necessary logistics for police verification and documentation.
The new order represents a significant administrative step in the implementation of the CAA. As the process moves forward, ensuring transparency, efficiency, and adherence to the rule of law will be critical.
Headline: Centre Set to Expand Mechanised Sanitation Scheme to Rural India
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
Expansion Plans: The Ministry of Social Justice has proposed expanding the National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem (NAMASTE) scheme from towns and cities to rural areas, with an outlay of approximately ₹498.73 crore to be spent from this fiscal year to 2030-31 . The expanded scheme will also include drain cleaners, sewage treatment plant workers, and faecal sludge treatment plant workers .
Scheme Coverage: NAMASTE was launched in 2023-24 to eradicate sewer and septic tank deaths. It initially covered sewer and septic tank workers (SSWs) and was later expanded to include waste pickers. So far, 90,915 SSWs and 1.3 lakh waste pickers have been profiled across the country .
Death Statistics: The Social Justice Ministry told Parliament that 498 people had died across the country while engaged in hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks from 2019 to June 2026 .
Low Utilisation: Only 810 SSWs have been approved for capital subsidies, of which only 147 have actually received funds as of March 31, 2026 . For the 58,000 manual scavengers identified, only 2,652 projects have been approved .
NCSC Concerns: The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has flagged the continued rejection of applications under the self-employment and capital subsidy components, calling for an examination of the “very high” rejection rate .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
GS Paper II: Social Justice – Welfare of vulnerable sections, Manual scavenging, Sanitation workers.
GS Paper II: Governance – Government policies, Scheme implementation.
GS Paper I: Society – Caste dynamics, Social justice, Dignity of labour.
GS Paper II: Constitution – Provisions for SCs, Constitutional bodies.
GS Paper III: Economic Development – Livelihoods, Self-employment.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. The NAMASTE Scheme: Overview
| Aspect | Details |
| Launch Year | 2023-24 |
| Objective | Eradicate sewer and septic tank deaths; promote mechanised sanitation |
| Target Beneficiaries | Sewer and septic tank workers (SSWs), waste pickers, drain cleaners, STP workers, faecal sludge treatment plant workers |
| Proposed Expansion | From urban areas to rural India |
| Proposed Outlay | ₹498.73 crore (2026-27 to 2030-31) |
| Key Components | Capital subsidies (up to 50% of project cost); Emergency Response Sanitation Units; Training; Personal Protective Equipment |
B. Implementation Status
| Indicator | Data |
| SSWs Profiled | 90,915 |
| Waste Pickers Profiled | 1.3 lakh |
| Capital Subsidy Approvals | 810 SSWs |
| Funds Actually Received | 147 SSWs |
| Projects Approved (Manual Scavengers) | 2,652 out of 58,000 identified |
C. Challenges: NCSC’s Concerns
The NCSC has highlighted several issues leading to the low number of approved projects :
| Issue | Details |
| High Rejection Rate | A “very high” rejection rate under each part of the capital subsidy component |
| Rejections in Self-Employment | Rejections in the Safai Udyami Yojana (individual capital subsidies) and in the component for Private Sanitation Service Organisations |
| Need for Examination | The NCSC has called for an examination of the reasons for rejections |
D. Legislative and Constitutional Context
| Aspect | Details |
| Manual Scavenging Ban | Manual scavenging was banned in India through the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 |
| Sewer Deaths | Since 2017, at least 932 workers have died in sewer and septic tank accidents, according to the Ministry of Social Justice |
| Constitutional Protection | Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes “untouchability” and prohibits its practice in any form |
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
NAMASTE: National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem – a centrally sponsored scheme launched in 2023-24 to eradicate sewer and septic tank deaths .
SSW: Sewer and Septic Tank Workers – the primary beneficiaries of the NAMASTE scheme .
NCSC: National Commission for Scheduled Castes – a constitutional body tasked with safeguarding the interests of Scheduled Castes .
PSSO: Private Sanitation Service Organisation – entities that can apply for capital subsidies under the scheme .
Safai Udyami Yojana: The self-employment component of the scheme where SSWs receive capital subsidies of up to 50% of the project cost .
Emergency Response Sanitation Units: Units set up in urban local bodies to provide rapid response to sanitation emergencies .
Prohibition of Manual Scavenging Act, 2013: The law prohibiting manual scavenging and providing for rehabilitation of manual scavengers .
Capital Subsidy: Financial assistance provided to beneficiaries to set up sanitation-related projects .
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper II (Social Justice): “The expansion of the NAMASTE scheme to rural areas aims to eliminate hazardous manual sanitation work. Analyse the challenges in implementing the scheme and the concerns raised by the NCSC.”
GS Paper II (Governance): “Despite government schemes, manual scavenging and sewer deaths persist in India. Critically examine the implementation of policies to eliminate hazardous sanitation work.”
GS Paper I (Society): “Manual scavenging in India is a consequence of caste-based discrimination. Discuss the social, economic, and legal dimensions of this issue.”
GS Paper II (Constitution): “Article 17 abolishes untouchability, yet manual scavenging continues. Examine the role of constitutional bodies like the NCSC in addressing this issue.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
Caste and Discrimination: Manual scavenging is rooted in caste-based discrimination, affecting mostly Dalit communities. The persistence of this practice reflects the deep social inequalities in India.
Hazardous Work: Sewer and septic tank cleaning remains one of the most hazardous occupations in India, with high rates of death and injury due to lack of safety equipment and mechanisation.
Rehabilitation: Even when schemes exist, the rehabilitation of manual scavengers has been slow, with low utilisation of funds and high rejection rates for self-employment projects.
Urban vs. Rural: The expansion of NAMASTE to rural areas is significant, as manual scavenging and hazardous cleaning are not limited to urban areas.
Labour Rights: The issue touches upon broader questions of labour rights, dignity, and the enforcement of labour laws in India.
Conclusion & Way Forward
The proposed expansion of the NAMASTE scheme to rural India represents a significant step toward eliminating hazardous manual sanitation work across the country. With a proposed outlay of ₹498.73 crore, the scheme aims to cover drain cleaners, sewage treatment plant workers, and faecal sludge treatment plant workers, along with existing beneficiaries like sewer and septic tank workers and waste pickers .
However, the implementation of the scheme has faced significant challenges. Only 810 out of 90,915 profiled SSWs have been approved for capital subsidies, and only 147 have actually received funds . For the 58,000 manual scavengers identified, only 2,652 projects have been approved . The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has flagged a “very high” rejection rate under the self-employment components, calling for an examination of the reasons .
The persistence of manual scavenging and sewer deaths—498 deaths from 2019 to June 2026 —reflects the deep-rooted social inequalities and the slow pace of rehabilitation. The expansion of the scheme must be accompanied by effective implementation, transparency, and accountability to ensure that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.
The Way Forward
- Examine Rejections: The Ministry should conduct a detailed examination of the reasons for rejections under the self-employment and capital subsidy components.
- Simplified Procedures: Simplify application procedures for beneficiaries, many of whom may be illiterate or lack access to formal financial institutions.
- Enhanced Outreach: Conduct intensive outreach to profiled SSWs and manual scavengers to inform them about the scheme components.
- Mechanisation: Accelerate the deployment of mechanised equipment and Emergency Response Sanitation Units.
- Safety Equipment: Ensure the provision of adequate personal protective equipment for workers.
- Rural Expansion: Ensure a smooth and effective expansion of the scheme to rural areas, with adequate infrastructure and support.
- Monitoring: Strengthen monitoring mechanisms to track the implementation and impact of the scheme.
- Accountability: Establish clear accountability mechanisms for the high rejection rates.
The NAMASTE scheme has the potential to be a transformative intervention in the lives of sanitation workers and manual scavengers. However, the low utilisation of funds and high rejection rates indicate that significant improvements in implementation are needed for the scheme to achieve its objectives. The expansion to rural areas provides an opportunity to address these challenges and ensure that the benefits of mechanised sanitation reach all parts of the country.
