Full Judgment Text
CP(C) 244/2021
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
Contempt Petition (Civil) No 244 of 2021
in
Writ Petition (Civil) No 213 of 2011
Baiju K G & Ors ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Dr V P Joy ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1 A contempt petition has been instituted before this Court by the residents of
Kasargod district in Kerala who were affected by the use of a toxic pesticide
called Endosulfan. The use of the pesticide led to a spread of mental and
physical ailments among residents of areas that were impacted by its use. A
writ petition was instituted before this Court by the persons affected by the
use of Endosulfan. This Court by its order dated 10 January 2017 directed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Chetan Kumar
Date: 2022.05.23
10:51:27 IST
Reason:
CP(C) 244/2021
2
the State Governments to compensate all the affected persons by
distributing an amount of Rs 5 lakhs to each affected person within three
months. This Court also directed the State Governments to consider the
feasibility of providing medical facilities and treatment for life-long ailments
arising from the effects of Endosulfan, considering the larger number of
affected persons. It is submitted by the petitioners, whose names are
mentioned in the list of Endosulfan victims prepared by the Government of
Kerala, that the Government has failed to comply with the order. The
petitioners are yet to be compensated and the medical facilities have not
been improved because of which the affected persons in Kasargod District
are compelled to travel to Trivandrum, about 600 kms away for their
treatment.
2
A compliance report dated 9 May 2022 has been filed by the Chief Secretary
to the Government of Kerala. The report indicates that on 16 March 2022, the
Chief Secretary convened a meeting in connection with the need for
disbursing compensation to the victims of Endosulfan, in compliance with the
judgment of this Court dated 10 January 2017. A team of officials from the
Health and Revenue departments has been constituted to visit the homes of
3704 victims to whom compensation is yet to be provided. Of these victims,
102 are found to be bedridden, 326 to be mentally disabled, 201 to be
physically disabled, 119 to be afflicted with cancer while 2966 fall in the
residual category. The Government of Kerala has done virtually nothing for
five years. Besides the fact that the delay is appalling, the inaction is in
CP(C) 244/2021
3
breach of the orders of this court.
3 The State Government has now taken a decision on 15 January 2022 by
issuing GO(Rt) No 1877/2022/Fin to authorize the disbursal of an additional
amount of Rs 200 crores for providing compensation to the victims of
Endosulfan. As of date, an amount of Rs 5 lakhs has been disbursed only to
eight persons who are the petitioners who have moved these contempt
proceedings. We fail to understand the logic or the rationale of the State
Government in disbursing compensation only to those who have the ability to
move this Court.
4 There are a large number of victims to whom no compensation has been
provided despite the passage of over five years since the date of the
judgment of this Court. Most of the victims, as the data before the Court
indicates, are from the marginalized segments of society. Many of the victims
are in a serious condition to whom compensation on an urgent basis has to
1
be provided. In Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa , this Court had
discussed the basis of awarding compensation in public law proceedings.
This Court had observed that the onus of a public wrong can be attributed to
the State if it fails to protect the fundamental rights of the citizenry and
compensation can be awarded in such cases. Justice AS Anand in his
concurring opinion had observed that:
“34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose
than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary
1 (1993) 2 SCC 746
CP(C) 244/2021
4
compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings
under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the
High Courts, for established infringement of the
indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is
based on the strict liability for contravention of the
guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen.
The purpose of public law is not only to civilize
public power but also to assure the citizen that
they live under a legal system which aims to
protect their interests and preserve their rights.
Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by
granting “compensation” in proceedings under
Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking
enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it
does so under the public law by way of penalising
the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public
wrong on the State which has failed in its public
duty to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizen. The payment of compensation in such
cases is not to be understood, as it is generally
understood in a civil action for damages under the
private law but in the broader sense of providing
relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’
under the public law for the wrong done due to
breach of public duty, of not protecting the
fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation
is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against
the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is
independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party
to claim compensation under the private law in an action
based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of
competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender
under the penal law.
35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors
of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power
and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of
the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim
whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India are established to have been
flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the
damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of
the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the
CP(C) 244/2021
5
remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings…”
(emphasis supplied)
The inordinate delay by the State Government in compensating the persons
affected by the use of Endosulfan not only reflects its failure to comply with
the order of this Court but also further compounds the violation of the
fundamental rights of such persons. The failure to redress the infringement
of their fundamental rights becomes more egregious with each passing day.
5 That apart, in the order of this Court dated 10 January 2017, the State
Government was directed to consider the feasibility of providing medical
facilities or treatment to deal with life-long health issues arising out of the
effects of Endosulfan, particularly having regard to the large number of
persons involved. The State Government has not disclosed what steps it has
taken to provide for medical treatment and rehabilitation to these victims.
The right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Without health, the faculties of living have little meaning.
We would be justified in taking recourse to the coercive arm of law. However,
our immediate concern is providing relief and rehabilitation to the victims
who are suffering. We accordingly issue the following directions:
(i) Since the payment of compensation has been made, though belatedly
to eight petitioners who have moved these proceedings, costs
quantified at Rs 50,000 each shall be paid over in addition to each of
the eight persons within a period of three weeks from the date of this
CP(C) 244/2021
6
order;
(ii) The Chief Secretary shall hold monthly meetings to ensure that the
judgment of this Court dated 10 January 2017 is diligently implemented
by undertaking the process of (a) identifying the victims of Endosulfan
and drawing up a list of beneficiaries; (b) ensuring the disbursement of
compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to each of the victims; and (c) taking steps
for ensuring due medical facilities within reasonable distance from their
places of residence in terms of the earlier directions of this Court.
(iii) An affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court indicating the
progress which has been made between the date of this order and the
next date of listing.
6 List the Contempt Petition on 18 July 2022.
……...…...….......………………........J.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
..…..…....…........……………….........J.
[Surya Kant]
New Delhi;
May 13, 2022
CKB
CP(C) 244/2021
7
ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.4 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No.244/2021 in W.P.(C) No.213/2011
BAIJU K.G & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. V.P. JOY Respondent(s)
(With IA No.30400/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-05-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR
Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv.
Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 In terms of the signed reportable judgment, the following directions are
issued:
CP(C) 244/2021
8
(i) Since the payment of compensation has been made, though belatedly
to eight petitioners who have moved these proceedings, costs
quantified at Rs 50,000 each shall be paid over in addition to each of
the eight persons within a period of three weeks from the date of this
order;
(ii) The Chief Secretary shall hold monthly meetings to ensure that the
judgment of this Court dated 10 January 2017 is diligently implemented
by undertaking the process of (a) identifying the victims of Endosulfan
and drawing up a list of beneficiaries; (b) ensuring the disbursement of
compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to each of the victims; and (c) taking steps
for ensuring due medical facilities within reasonable distance from their
places of residence in terms of the earlier directions of this Court.
(iii) An affidavit of compliance shall be filed before this Court indicating the
progress which has been made between the date of this order and the
next date of listing.
2 List the Contempt Petition on 18 July 2022.
(CHETAN KUMAR) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)