Introduction
The Supreme Court, through a landmark decision, again reinforced the constitutional principles of fundamental principles of human dignity and social justice. The Supreme Court, through this decision, directed a complete ban on ‘Hand-pulled’ rickshaws in Matheran, Maharashtra, within a span of 6 months. The court’s decision marked a significant shift towards eliminating what is termed as “inhumane practice” that violated the constitutional guarantees. This decision addressed the intersection of environmental protection, tourism management and human rights.
Background
Matheran is a picturesque hill station near Mumbai, which is known for its eco-sensitive policies that prohibit the use of automobiles to preserve its pristine environment, and because of these restrictions, only fire trucks and ambulances are permitted during any emergency situation, while the residents and tourists rely on the traditional hand-pulled rickshaws operated by the local pullers. This hill station, being one of the main attractions of Mumbai, attracts thousands and lakhs of tourists, especially during the peak seasons, raising transportation a critical livelihood issue for hundreds of rickshaw pullers.
This matter came before the Supreme Court through an ongoing litigation regarding the transportation policies in Matheran’s Eco-Sensitive Zones. In May of 2022, the Court granted permission for a scheme allowing the use of e-rickshaws in Matheran’s Eco-Sensitive Zone and further ordered that the e-rickshaws be provided exclusively to the existing rickshaw pullers in the Matheran Eco-Sensitive Zone to compensate the loss of their income due to the ban on the practice of hand-pulling rickshaws.
Key Points
The Supreme Court’s decision in this regard was motivated by humanitarian and constitutional issues of primary importance:
- Violated Constitution and the Human Being’s Dignity: The Supreme Court of India gave the Maharashtra Government a historic ruling last Wednesday, mandating the cessation of the circulation of hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran and the surrounding areas after a period of six months. Using hand-pulled rickshaws for a livelihood is a gross violation of human dignity and a betrayal of the constitutional guarantee of social and economic justice. The Supreme Court made a ruling claiming Matheran’s actions were what they termed “inhumane” and therefore the Court ordered the Maharashtra Government to cease these practices, granted six months for the introduction of alternatives to be provided, such as e-rickshaws.
- Humanitarian Concerns: The Court reinforced that the practice of one human pulling another in a rickshaw or a cart inherently constitutes a degrading form of labour that has and should not have a place in Modern India. This statement of the Supreme Court shows and reflects the commitment of the judiciary to ensuring that economic activities do not compromise basic human dignity.
- Transition to E-Rickshaws and compensation framework: The Supreme Court, in this case, directed the Maharashtra Government to implement a project which provides for e-rickshaws for the hand-pulling rickshaw drivers. The move is intended to protect basic human dignity and to protect the environment, as Matheran is an Eco-Sensitive Zone. This project is also intended to align these principles with constitutional promises of social and economic justice in India. The Court directed the government to implement a comprehensive e-rickshaw policy that would provide the hand-pulling rickshaw drivers a sustainable livelihood alternative and also instructed to give priority in allocation of e-rickshaw permits, prompting their transition from a banned practice of livelihood to a more dignified employment.
- Environmental Balance: The main reason why hand-pulling rickshaws are still prominent in Matheran is that the region is an eco-sensitive zone. The Supreme Court, in this regard, maintained the status quo of the Matheran region as an automobile-free zone while providing a technologically advanced and environmentally sustainable transportation alternative that respects human dignity.
Recent Developments
In the landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India has declared the age-old practice of hand-pulling rickshaws in Matheran as “inhumane” and unconstitutional, ordering the government to impose a complete ban on this practice within six months. The Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R Gavai, instructed the Maharashtra Government to accelerate the alternative transportation and livelihood mechanism.
The Court’s directions come with a timeline under which the state is expected to take action. This decision of the Court is a milestone in upholding human dignity and protecting the constitutional values of our country. It also portrays how the judiciary always strives for the betterment of the citizens of the country. The aspersion approach adopted by the Supreme Court demonstrates judicial pragmatism, where the Court acknowledged the economic realities of the rickshaw pullers while firmly reinforcing that human dignity cannot be compromised for the convenience of tourism management and traditional practices.
However, this decision will impact hundreds of rickshaw pullers in the Matheran region who depend on this occupation for generations as a means of livelihood; nevertheless, the Court emphasised providing a prompt shift to e-rikshaw services for the hand-pulling rickshaw drivers suggesting a commitment to ensuring that the transition does not affect the livelihood of the person and provide for an economic enrichment.
Conclusion
The ruling of the Supreme Court banning the use of hand-pulled rickshaws in Matheran is a notable step in the history of India’s journey towards abolishing practices that undermine human dignity while trying to maintain a balance between nature and the economy. This is yet another example of how the judiciary is interpreting the values of the Constitution, which in itself is a matter of socio-technological progress.
The Court’s six-month deadline is ample time for the Maharashtra government to conceptualise and execute a comprehensive shift policy to mitigate environmental impact while simultaneously supporting those whose livelihoods will be impacted. This ruling will likely guide other areas of the country where customs and practices clash with the democratic ideals of human dignity and social justice.
The Court’s approach showed that reaching an equitable socio-economic balance mandates government action to fully assist vulnerable groups in society. The ruling strengthens the fact that no form of economic activity, however steeped in tradition or tourism, can take place at the cost of human dignity.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: YANA S JACOB
