20 May 2002

SUPREME COURT 'NO' TO INTERVENE IN RELIEF CAMPS CLOSURE ISSUE

From Jal Khambata

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday snubbed People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), turning down its urgent application for an ex-parte interim order to the Gujarat Government not to close down any of the relief camps of the violence victims "until an objective asseessment is made by an independent monitoring agency under the supervision" of the Court.

The vacation Bench of Mr Justice Santosh Hegde and S N Variava pulled up PUDR counsel for rushing to the Supreme Court instead of going before the Gujarat High Court where a case was already listed on the issue of the relief camps' closure.

Since PUDR sought to implead itself in an earlier admitted public interest writ petition (No 221) of Mallika Sarabhai, Digant Oza and others regarding the Gujarat violence, the judges also scolded PUDR for adopting the tactic in a bid to bring that petition on board during the vacation of the Supreme Court.

"Why are you not going to the High Court if so much aggrieved and really concerned? The main petition (of Mallika Sarabhai) is not regarding relief camps closure. You only want notice," one of the judges remarked. The Sarabhai petition refers to poor conditions of the relief camps but it did not raise the issue of any forced closure.

Whenever the main petition comes up for hearing, PUDR can get itself impleaded or it can implead itself in the High Court, the judges said. They also made it ample clear that PUDR's intent appears to just get the notices issued to the state government (for publicity sake) and nothing more and that they are not going to oblige.

Senior Advocate P Chidambaram representing Mallika Sarabhai was also in the Court but he did not rise. The only intervention during PUDR pleading came from Solicitor General Harish Salve appearing on behalf of the Gujarat Government. He pointed out that the state government had already assured the High Court not to close down the relief camps except those where all inmates have dispersed.

The PUDR counsel pleaded that the state government assurance in the High Court applies to only seven camps and as such it should be extended to cover all 98 camps. He also unsuccessfully pleaded that the state government's assurance relates to only the government-aided camps and not the private camps it and other NGOs were running. The Court, however, refused to issue any order in any respect.

It may be mentioned here that the Supreme Court has already issued notices on the main petition of Mallika Sarabhai and others as also on another petition filed by Public Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) subsequently, but the state government is yet to file replies. No date has been yet fixed for the hearing while the petitioners intend to mention before the Chief Justice for an urgent listing only in July when the Court reopens after the vacation.

The PUDR petition had sought an interim order not only to prevent closure of any relief camps but also an order to the government "to ensure that all relief camps continue to function until all persons housed there are fully rehabilitated and their safety is ensured." END