NE LEGAL BUREAU
NEW DELHI, MAY 28
The Supreme Court on Thursday raised queries before the Centre and state governments over stranded migrant workers facing the endless wait for seats in home-bound trains or buses, the confusion over payment of fares and alleged lack of food and shelter for them during the hearing on the thorny issue.
The apex court, which had taken suo motu (on its own) cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers stranded at various places, today directed the states, UTs and the Railways that no fare for travel will be charged from the workers and they have to be provided shelter, food and water till they board the home-bound trains or buses.
A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, S K Kaul, and M R Shah heard a battery of senior lawyers, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Colin Gonsalves and Indira Jaising, for almost two-and-half hours before passing certain interim directions.
At the outset, the bench asked the lawyers, including Singhvi who was representing Congress leader Randeep Singh Surejewala, not to speak simultaneously and proceeded to hear Solicitor General Mehta who was directed to assist the bench in its previous order.
Law officer Mehta opposed the interim pleas sought to be argued by some lawyers and said “there are prophets of doom who keep spreading disinformation” and moreover, they should come out and support the needy people on the streets at the time when the human race is facing the most difficult challenge.
“There’s no dispute that governments are doing something. But these persons are not getting all benefits from governments,” the bench said, adding that it needed to have the clarity as to who is paying for the tickets of these workers.
Mehta said all states are cooperating and some portion of the fare is either paid by the “receiving or originating states” to railways and in some cases, the money is reimbursed to the workers.
“The unprecedented situation needed unprecedented measures,” the law officer said, adding that a joint decision has been taken that the home-bound migrant workers, out of the 80 per cent hail from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, will not be burdened with the fare.
“In our country, the middlemen will always be there. But we don’t want middlemen to interfere with this when it comes to payment of fares. There has to be a clear policy as to who will pay for their travel,” the bench said.
The court then asked about the normal time to be taken in shifting the workers to their native places and said “there must be some certainty that he will be shifted out within one week or ten days at most? What is that time?” We accept that it’s not possible to transport everyone at the same time. But food and shelter must be given until they can get transport.”
It said that there have been instances where one state sends migrants but at the border, another state refuses to accept them.
The law officer referred to a report and said that between May 1 and 27 a total of 3,700 special trains have been operated for migrants.
Besides, many have been shifted by road to bordering states, and a total of 91 lakh migrant workers have been shifted to their native places so far, he said.
The top court said that with food surplus available with the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the migrant workers, waiting to be transported, be given food during the waiting period.
Mehta said that UP has adopted a system to quarantine migrants as soon as they reach the railway station and they also give some cash and food kit after the quarantine period gets over.
The court took note of the submission that each migrant has been given some free ration and asked as to how they are served food grains either in shelter homes or in rented accommodations.
Sibal referred to the law on Disaster Management and said that there was a provision for the preparation of the national plan to tackle the disaster and it has not been put in the public domain.
He said as per estimation, there were four crores of migrant workers waiting for the transportation and till now only 91 lakh people have been sent to homes in 27 days and it will take months in completing the entire exercise.
There have to be certain minimum standards and they include shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover, and sanitation and till date, there have no such facilities given as mandated under the law, Sibal said.
”All responsibilities have been shifted to the state governments,” he said, adding that “migrants must be given tickets” and the Centre must also show whether social distancing norms were being followed in trains or in camps.
On May 26, the top court had taken cognizance of the miseries of migrant workers and said there have been “inadequacies and certain lapses” by the Centre and the states and asked them to provide transport, food and shelter immediately free of cost.
‘Armchair intellectuals’ acting as ‘prophets of doom’, spreading negativity, SG complains to SC
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Thursday complained to the Supreme Court that there are “armchair intellectuals” acting as “prophets of doom” in the country by spreading negativity and not recognizing the “humongous” efforts being made to deal with migrant workers” crisis following the Covid-19 induced lockdown.
Mehta, assisting the top court in the matter, said that as an officer of the court he has a complaint not against the court but against handful of the people who, based on some media reports about an isolated incident, are spreading “misinformation” and spreading “negativity” during the crisis.
A bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M R Shah, hearing a suo motu case on the miseries faced by migrant workers during the lockdown, was informed by Mehta, appearing for the Centre, about the steps taken by the government to deal with the crisis.
“There are Prophets of Doom in our country which only spread negativity, negativity, and negativity. These people are always sceptical about everything. These armchair intellectuals do not recognize the nation’s effort in dealing with the crisis. All these people squabbling on social media, giving interviews, writing articles against every other institution, cannot even acknowledge what is being done by the government,” he said.
The senior law officer said that these kinds of people have not shown any courtesy to the nation, while the country has responded to the pandemic, and “they don’t even have the patriotism to acknowledge the work done to mitigate the crisis”.
Mehta said he wanted that his complaint should be brought on record that “Some isolated, limited instance is repeatedly shown in the media. Sometimes a limited instance has a long-lasting impact on the human mind”
He further said: “A large number of steps were taken by the government and the apex court was fully satisfied with them earlier. State governments and ministers are working overnight. None of these ‘public-spirited people’ and ‘armchair intellectuals,’ has acknowledged that effort”.
Mehta highlighted that around one crore migrant workers are shifted but there are some who do not want to shift due to the reopening of the activities.
“Migrants are walking because of anxiety or local level instigation where they are said ‘walk now, trains won’t run. Lockdown extended,” he said.
Mehta referred to the famous photograph of “The vulture and the girl” which was published in The New York Time in 1993 and said that the picture won the Pulitzer Prize in 1994 but the photographer Eric Carter committed suicide four months thereafter.
He said that Carter had taken the picture in Sudan in 1993, where a vulture was waiting for the panic-stricken child to die.
“He (Eric Carter) was not an activist. He was not running an NGO. Perhaps, he was a man with a conscience. Some journalists asked him what happened to that child. He said I don’t know as I had to return home. Then the reporter asked him as how many vultures were there? To which, carter replied only one. The reporter replied to him no, there were two. One was holding the camera”, Mehta narrated the story to the bench.
He said that those who come before the court must establish their credentials, whether they have spent the penny on the migrant workers and whether these people who are criticizing, has anyone of them come out of their air-conditioned drawing rooms to help them?
Mehta stated that this has become a trend and the Court, as an institution, has to prevent the spread of this trend and stressed that the trend is that handful of people give “certificates” to judges of neutrality only if judges abuse the Executive.
He said that a handful of people must not be able to drive the exercise of jurisdiction of the apex court and pointed that every time the judges refuse to abuse the Executive/Legislative action, it is not a rehash of the ADM Jabalpur era.
The Solicitor General stressed that the trend is that if the Court, in its wisdom ever declines a matter on merits, it suddenly becomes an ‘ADM Jabalpur’ moment, making it a slur on the reputation of the Court.
In the ADM Jabalpur case of 1976, the five-judge bench of the apex court by a majority verdict 4:1 had arrived at the conclusion that Article 21 is the sole repository of all rights to life and personal liberty, and, when suspended, takes away those rights altogether.
The SG said that all those people who want to intervene in the suo motu case need to apply the vulture and child story and tell the court how they have contributed.
Mehta said that people are working tirelessly during the crisis right from the sanitation workers level to the Prime Minister level and the court should not allow the proceedings to become a platform for political speeches.
To this, the bench replied that people who have been part of the institution, if they believe they can run down the institution, it is unfortunate. “We have to go by our conscience,” Justice Kaul said.
Mehta also alleged that some High Courts are working and passing orders like they are virtually running parallel governments and such courts are being applauded by these “armchair intellectuals”.
He stressed that every Court must exercise its discretion with its own wisdom and analysis and without playing to the gallery and its majesty and magnanimity, should not be construed as the Court’s weakness.
