The Supreme Court Wednesday constituted a five-member committee that will make a comprehensive assessment of the situation in the flood-ravaged areas of Jammu and Kashmir, and report to the court.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said: "In light of the claims and counter claims made by the parties before us, we are of the considered view that ground situation obtaining in both the regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, needs to be ascertained before any further order is passed by this Court."
The court said the committee will comprise a senior registrar of Jammu and Kashmir High Court posted at Srinagar, secretary of the department of revenue, relief and rehabilitation of the state government, a nominee of the central government and the presidents of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association in Srinagar and Jammu regions.
The Registrar of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court posted at Srinagar who is nominated to the Committee will be the Convenor of the Committee.
The Committee will submit its interim report within two weeks and a copy of the interim report would also be filed before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court hearing a PIL on a similar subject.
The pendency of the above matter before it, the apex court said, "shall not be an impediment for the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to pass appropriate orders in light of the interim report that may be submitted by the Committee."
The Court constituted a committee as it was contended before it by the petitioner J&K Panthers Party Chief Bhim Singh, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves and petitioner-in-person advocate Vasundhara Pathak Masoodi, that despite tall claims nothing was happening at the ground level for effective implementation of rescue and relief operations.
The petitioners resisted Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's suggestion that since J&K High Court has started functioning, the entire matter should be sent to it as it was in a better situation to deal with it.
The Attorney General said that judges of the high court were more aware of the situation and if required could get better feedback by sending its registrar and other people.
The matter will come up for hearing on October 10.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
The executive is in the best position to gather the facts - it has the personnel, the wherewithal and the responsibility. Would the Court be more effective if it intervened only when there was a failure of the executive?
Assuming that there will be failures of the executive from time to time, is court intervention the only answer? One would think that the constitution provides for other solutions in that case, including using provisions of Article 356 in extreme cases. Laudable as the Court's concern is, and morally robust, would the court not be increasing it's own already considerable workload? Judicial solutions take time to mature - executive ones can be delivered with alacrity. This alone should make us think whether this is a matter for the Supreme Court's intervention, or for a mere directive to the executive, urging it to show urgency and take all steps for quick relief. As yet, there appears to be no miscarriage of justice, or violation of rights except that wrought by force majeure in this instance.
The judiciary is like the emperor's bell - the rope to be tugged at when all else fails. If the bell is the only resort, it will undermine and eventually destroy the citizens' faith in the constitutional scheme of things.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first