Courts hold out glimmer of hope in the face of govt’s abdication of responsibility to deal with COVID calamity

Increasing instances of courts resorting to suo moto route to take up issues of public concern have perhaps attracted the tag of vigilantism by judiciary. From a purely legal perspective, there may be some pitfalls of this instrument, which can be considered to be a post-1990 phenomenon.

But when a government or the ruling establishment maintains an indifferent and insensitive approach towards problems faced by the general public, one shudders to think what would have happened if the courts had refused to intervene even at the risk of being criticised for so-called judicial activism.

One of the most decisive suo moto interventions by the Supreme Court was in the case of air pollution in Delhi. In 1996, the court ordered stringent measures to control pollution in the national capital, which made the metropolis the fourth grubbiest city in the world.

The court ruled that the government is under constitutional obligation to control pollution, which had claimed the lives of over 7,000 people. The court then issued notice to the Union government, three-wheeler, taxi and truck operators unions and other agencies concerned. And the intervention found results, with the government clamping down on polluting entities and Delhi pollution could be brought down to slightly more tolerable levels.

Perhaps the most glorious suo moto intervention by the Supreme Court was in May 2020, when a three-member bench came down heavily on the ‘inadequacies and lapses’ by the Central and state governments in dealing with the migrants crisis following the national lockdown in the wake of the COVID outbreak.

The action followed the court taking suo motu cognisance of media reports and representations from senior lawyers to step in to protect the fundamental rights of the migrant workers as the authorities, particularly the Central government, preferred to look away when thousands of migrant workers on their long trek back home had perished in the course of the arduous journey.

The Supreme Court similarly adopted a tough posture on the penal interest on the repayments which were deferred under the moratorium announced by the government for loan repayments by borrowers in the wake of the disruption in economic activity and business following the national lockdown.

Thanks to persistent efforts by the court, the government was forced to waive the penal interest after much hesitation on the ground that such waiver would affect the health of the country’s banking sector.

A plea has again been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions for relief to borrowers in the form of a fresh loan moratorium, extension of time period under the restructuring scheme and temporary cease on the declaration of NPA by the financial banks to give relief to the public interest at large in wake of the continuing pandemic in its second wave.

The petition requests the court to direct banks and financial institutions to desist from recovery proceedings by way of auctioning the properties of defaulters.

People’s faith in the highest court of land for getting succour to their problems when they receive a rough deal at the hands of the government has been further boosted by the Supreme Court making critical suo moto interventions in matters relating to COVID, especially vaccination, oxygen supply and drug prices as the second wave of the pandemic is ravaging the country.

The court took suo moto cognizance of the ‘alarming situation’ and the health emergencies prevailing in various parts of the country, such as oxygen shortages, chaotic scenes at vaccination centres due to lack of a cohesive policy regarding supply of vaccines as well as other logistics issues, and issued notice to the Centre seeking immediate responses to handle the situation.

The court’s order came as it proactively took up the matter as similar petitions have come before six high courts, including the Delhi High Court, dealing with various problems related to the handling of the COVID situation.

Incidentally, there is opposition from some sections of society to the tendency of courts showing leniency to allow public interest litigations as suo moto candidates for the consideration of courts. Critics allege that it leads to blurring of the line of responsibility between the judiciary and the executive and that these petitions take the courts to areas that are outside their original jurisdiction.

Such criticism might be valid in normal circumstances. But in situations such as the ones prevailing now, when the government is running away from its responsibilities and short changes people, perhaps the courts hold out the only salvation.

(IPA Service)

Views are personal