Supreme Court Criticises Tamil Nadu Govt For Dragging 1996 Riot Compensation Matter
The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Tamil Nadu government for repeatedly seeking adjournments in a matter concerning compensation for property and business losses caused by communal riots of 1996 in Thoothukudi (Tuticorin), questioning its failure to ensure timely relief to the victims.
A bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria expressed displeasure over the State government's approach, observing that despite appointing commissions to address grievances following communal riots and arson, the authorities often fail to ensure that the promised relief reaches those affected.
"So tired of this matter, I think I will carry this through my demitting the office...It is a simple matter; the State ought not to be dragging its feet," Justice Bhatti remarked after the bench was informed that a letter seeking an adjournment had been circulated last Saturday.
The matter dates back to 1996, when communal riots in Thoothukudi caused damage to businesses and properties. Following the incident, the State government appointed a former District Judge as a one-man commission to assess the losses and recommend compensation to the affected persons.
The commission recommended compensation based on the actual losses suffered. However, the State government subsequently issued Government Order G.O.Ms.No.1834, granting uniform compensation of Rs. 2 lakh to all affected persons.
The decision was challenged before the Madras High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench favoured compensation in accordance with the recommendations of the one-man commission. The State government subsequently challenged the High Court's decisions before the Supreme Court.
When the matter came up for hearing, the bench expressed frustration over the repeated adjournments, with Justice Bhatti questioning how many times the Court would have to prepare for the hearing only for the matter to be postponed.
The counsel for the State sought two weeks' time to file a rejoinder. However, the Court declined the request, with Justice Bhatti pointing out that the incident had occurred in 1996 and that the matter had remained unresolved for decades.
"In terms of money, compensation or replenishment, even if we accept the prayers in entirety, we would not be doing justice," Justice Bhatti observed.
Criticising the State's conduct in the proceedings, he referred to the repeated adjournments recorded in the case and asked the counsel to consider the Court's position.
"That is the manner in which the State is filing its cases...See RoP, after RoP [of adjournments]. Understand the Court also. You want my personal observations and remarks?" he said.
The judge also questioned the State's approach towards addressing the grievances of victims of communal violence, observing that the appointment of commissions often creates an expectation that their losses will be redressed.
"Today, you are keeping your reputation in between, and you are making your trade to get this released. We have no capacity to control communal riots; properties get subjected to arson and loot. Immediately as solace, we appoint Commissions. We give speeches saying everything will be attended to. There is a system and [people feel] my [their] grievances are going to be solved," Justice Bhatti remarked.
The bench ultimately adjourned the matter until Tuesday. Justice Bhatti asked the State government to specify what exemplary consequences should follow from the prolonged delay in disbursing compensation.
The Court was informed that the State had already deposited 50% of the compensation amount.
"In these types of matters, if the State fails, we are not going to give a helping hand," Justice Bhatti told the counsel.