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