The Madras High Court on Wednesday expressed concern over the Centre having allocated a relatively low amount of ₹510 crore from the State Disaster Risk Management Fund (SDRMF) for Tamil Nadu, despite it having recorded the second highest number of patients who have tested positive for COVID-19, in the entire country.
Justices N. Kirubakaran and R. Hemalatha suo motu included the Union Home Ministry as a respondent to a public interest litigation petition and directed it to reply in two weeks. The petition had actually sought for a direction to the State government to subject those who had been exempted from the lockdown to COVID-19 tests, before lifting the restrictions. During the course of hearing, the judges wondered what the logic was behind the Centre having allocated ₹966 crore to Uttar Pradesh, ₹910 crore to Madhya Pradesh, ₹802 crore to Odisha, ₹740 crore to Rajasthan, ₹708 crore to Bihar, ₹662 crore to Gujarat and ₹555 crore to Andhra Pradesh, but only ₹510 crore to Tamil Nadu.
Making it clear that it was not against allocation of more money to other States, but was certainly concerned about allocation of less money to Tamil Nadu, the court wanted to know modalities followed by the Centre before allocating SDRMF — the primary fund that could be used by State governments to provide relief to victims of notified disasters.
“The Central government may positively consider increasing the amount (to Tamil Nadu),” the judges observed in their order. The court granted a fortnight’s time for the State to respond to the petition. Justice Kirubakaran opined that it would be better if the government extended the lockdown, so that “commendable” efforts taken so far, to contain the spread of the disease, do not turn futile. He also hinted that courts in the State might work even during summer vacation in May.
The court also made a fervent appeal to friends and relatives of patients who had tested positive for COVID-19, as well as those related to foreign returnees, to subject themselves to quarantine, voluntarily, without being forced to do so. It made a similar appeal to all people in general and asked them to avoid stepping out of their houses.
“Meanwhile, it is open to police authorities to arrest, as well as seize, two-wheelers or four-wheelers, used in violation of the Section 144 order, if anybody comes out without reason, beyond 1 p.m. Police authorities are directed to inform employers of the violators (government or private employees) about the violation,” the court ordered.
When the Bench took up another PIL petition filed by advocate G. Rajesh who claimed that farmers were suffering losses due to their inability to transport perishable goods, Additional Advocate General P.H. Arvindh Pandian informed the court that Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami had already taken steps to safeguard interests of the agriculturalists.
He said that nodal officers were appointed across the State, cold storage facilities were opened up fully, mobile vegetable stores were being operated and toll-free phone numbers provided to receive complaints, if any. After recording his submissions, the judges directed the government to publicise its efforts through visual and social media.
Taking up two other PIL petitions filed by advocates A.P. Suryaprakasam and M.L. Ravi, who wanted an insurance cover of ₹10 lakh each for sanitary workers, appointed on a contract basis, as well as Home Guards, the judges sought the government’s response in two weeks and impressed upon the need to provide protective gear to all sanitary workers.
The Division Bench also reserved its orders on a PIL petition that sought for a direction to the government to prescribe a particular homeopathic medicine for treating COVID-19. Expressing deep concern over medical research not being encouraged in a big way in the country, the judges said that it was time to give an impetus to research on developing vaccines.
The two judges heard the cases wearing masks and gloves. And before commencing the proceedings, they expressed the court’s ‘heartfelt thanks’ to doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, sanitary workers, policemen, ambulance drivers, attendants and others, whom the Bench described as “corona warriors”.
