NEW DELHI: Expressing anguish over three-decade delay, the Supreme Court on Monday criticised the Tamil Nadu government for dragging compensation matter for property and business losses caused by communal riots of 1996 in Thoothukudi.
A bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria pulled up the State for repeatedly seeking adjournments and failing to ensure timely relief to victims.
"Despite appointing commissions after riots and arson, authorities often fail to ensure promised relief reaches those affected, defeating purpose of commission," said Justice Bhatti.
Justice Bhatti also remarked that he was so tired of this matter that, he thinks he will carry this through my demitting the office. "It is a simple matter; the State ought not to be dragging its feet," he added after the court was being informed that letter seeking adjournment was circulated last Saturday.
The matter dates back to 1996 when communal riots in Thoothukudi caused damage to businesses and properties. The State appointed former District Judge as one-man commission to assess losses and recommend compensation based on actual losses.
The commission recommended compensation based on actual losses. However, State issued a government order granting a uniform compemnsation of Rs 2 lakh to all affected persons. The decision was challenged before the Madras High Court. Both Single Judge and Division Bench favoured compensation as per commission.
The State then challenged the High Court decisions before the Supreme Court. When the matter came up for hearing on Monday, the bench expressed frustration over repeated adjournments, questioning how many times the Court would have to prepare only for matter to be postponed.
The State counsel sought two weeks time to file rejoinder. The court, however, declined, pointing out that the incident occurred in 1996 and remained unresolved for decades.
"In terms of money, compensation or replenishment, even if we accept prayers in entirety, we would not be doing justice," Justice Bhatti observed. He criticised State's conduct, referring to repeated adjournments recorded and said, "That is manner in which State is filing its cases...See RoP, after RoP. Understand Court also."
The Judge also questioned State's approach towards victims, observing appointment of commissions creates expectation that losses will be redressed. He said, "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 system and my grievances are going to be solved."
The Bench adjourned the matter until Tuesday, asking the State what exemplary consequences should follow from delay. Court was informed State had already deposited 50% compensation amount. "In these types of matters, if State fails, we are not going to give helping hand," Justice Bhatti told the counsel.