Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court today (August 14 stayed the Madras High Court's order, which struck down a Government Order(GO) passed by the Tamil Nadu government, granting compassionate appointments to victims' families in the Karur stampede tragedy.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed the interim order while issuing notice on the petition filed by the State and others challenging the High Court's judgment

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Senior Advocate Mukul Rohagti appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. Singhvi submitted, "If the State wants to give out [compassionate appointment] out of killings as a policy decision under Article 162, how can the High Court interfere? There is no quashing sought of my circular, no challenge in the petition to my circular. In employment, can you file a PIL [by a lawyer]?

Advocate Velan(for a political party) interjected and stated that compassionate appointment can't be at the discretion of the State. He submitted that the party which was responsible for the stampede was ruling the State now, and hence, there was a conflict of interest in the decision. When the bench asked who the lawyer was representing, he said that he was for a political party.

To this, Justice Pardiwala questioned what the role of a political party is here. Justice Chandran remarked: "Don't bring politics here."

The bench also asked what the problem is with the State giving employment to the victims of a tragedy.

Justice Pardiwala said,  "A stampede took place, something very unfortunate happened, some hundreds of people died. Now if the government decided that the family members should be provided with some succour, and suppose they would have decided to compensate them with money, would you have objected? Who are you to question the policy of the government, saying no employment should be given. Suppose if the sole earning member has died in the stampede and there is nobody else in the family who is earning, shouldn't the government give some employment to son or daughter or wife as per their educational [qualifications]".

It may be recalled that on July 27, the Madurai bench struck down a GO, noting that appointments violated Articles 14 and 16. A division bench comprising Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel observed that there were many who were waiting to get compassionate appointments in every government department, and it was not appropriate to overlook their needs and provide employment to the families in the present case.

The High Court also noted that though the State had claimed to have passed the orders in exercise of its administrative powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, such powers had to be exercised within the rigours of the Constitution.

It pointed out that if compassionate appointment was permitted in the present case, it would only open floodgates for various others to seek such employment. The bench gave examples of a firework accident and motor accidents, where even though the loss of life may be due to state inaction, the victims were not given compassionate appointments but only ex gratia payments. 

Case Details: PRABAKARAN SELVAKUMAR AND ANR. v THEERAN THIRUMURUGAN @ THIRUMURUGAN AND ORS|Diary No. 46173-2026

Tags: