The Mangalore air crash has exposed more than just laxity in civil aviation.It calls for a serious rethink on the part of the judiciary about its growing aversion to public interest litigation (PIL). This is because of the cavalier manner in which the Karnataka high court and Supreme Court appear to have dismissed two PIL petitions that had meticulously brought out safety violations in the very location of the ill-fated tabletop airport. Environment Support Group (ESG), a local NGO, filed the first PIL way back in 1997 when the second runway abutting the gorge into which the plane fell was still in the planning stage.(FULL TEXT OF WP). Rather than giving it the attention that could have saved the 158 lives that perished in last weeks crash, the high court accepted the contention of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) that the petitioners were merely busy bodies and meddlesome interlopers who have no interest in the promulgation of the project and asserted that they were not canvassing any public interest. In its 1998 verdict, HC bench comprising Justices Y Bhaskar Rao and AM Farooq were content to go by the false assurances given by AAI claiming that the fear of petitioners that the runway is insufficient for any emergency landing of a plane is without any basis since before project is to proceed, the authorities will be meeting recommendations of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. (VIEW JUDGEMENT)
Glossing over PILs central concern that the site gave little scope for compliance with ICAO regulations, HC asserted, We are sure that the respondent will be taking all necessary measures, before proceeding with the project in question. It added that PIL was premature as the petitioners had rushed to this court before the commencement of the project itself.
Since the subsequent construction failed to comply with the prescribed safety norms, ESG filed its second PIL in 2002.(FULL TEXTT HERE). This too was promptly dismissed by HC, which said, No doubt in an appropriate case, this court can issue directions, if there is gross violation of fundamental rights or if the issue touches the conscience of this court.
Brushing aside the fears of the petitioners, HC certified rather gratuitously that the second runway was in the interest of the public. When ESG appealed against this HC order in 2003, the apex court too bought into the safety claims made by authorities.In its five-line order, a bench comprising Justices SN Variava and BN Agarwal held, We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. (VIEW SC JUDGEMENT).
Though the very nature of the site ruled out the possibility of compliance with norms, SC washed its hands of the matter saying that the government should observe all the applicable rules. The dismissal of the petitions related to the Mangalore airport is part of the larger pattern of the PIL concept, which was devised by SC judges in 70s and 80s as an innovation that won accolades around the world, coming increasingly under attack,partly because of its misuse,from the 90s onwards. One of the first policy statements of the new Chief Justice of India, S H Kapadia, was to make it even harder for PIL petitions to be entertained.
=============================
(SOURCE-TOI, WPs/JUDGEMENTS-AN NGO, ESG ENVIRONMENT SUPPORTGROUP)
=============================
AMERICAN CENTER ATTACK -Apex court stays death sentence of Aftab Ansari
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the death sentence of Aftab Alam Ansari, the mastermind of the terrorist attack on American Center in Kolkata on January 22, 2002, that left six policemen dead. A vacation bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and CK Prasad admitted the statutory appeal filed by Ansari, who challenged his conviction as well as sentence. The SC asked the West Bengal government to file its response to the petition within 16 weeks. Ansari was deported to India from Dubai in February 2002 after police identified him as the man who planned the indiscriminate spraying of bullets by motorcycle-borne assailants on American Center. The Calcutta HC, in its Feb 5, 2010 verdict, upheld death sentence for Ansari and Mohd Jamiluddin Nasir, but acquitted Adil Hasan and Rehan Alam, both of whom were given capital punishment by the trial court. The trial court on April 27, 2005 had awarded death sentence to Hasrat Alam, Musharat Hossain and Shakil Ahmed. The three were given life term by the HC.
==============================
(source-toi)
No comments:
Post a Comment