SC decries delay in constructing shelter homes

In the Order on November 11 a three-judges bench comprising the Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices Dr D Y Chandrachud and Justice L Nageswara Rao of the apex court have expressed displeasure over the delay in implementing the Scheme of Shelters for urban homeless and constituted a committee headed by a retired judge of the Delhi High Court to inquire into the reasons for the slow progress in setting up of shelter homes by the States/ Union Territories, etc.

Dealing with two separate writ petitions filed against the Union of India and others by E R Kumar and another and Deepan Bora (W.P (Civil) Nos.55 & 572 of 2003), the Supreme Court, in its order, at the outset said; “these writ petitions were filed in the year 2003 but no effective orders could be passed till 2014 as all the States did not file their responses and status reports.”

The scheme aimed at the poverty alleviation of urban people is to be implemented by the National Urban Livelihoods Mission ( NULM). The NULM Mission Document, inter alia, states that providing shelters equipped with essential services to the urban homeless in a phased manner is a top priority.

As per the Scheme, Government of India would fund 75 per cent of the cost of construction of the shelters and the remaining 25 per cent would be contributed by the States/UTs.

In case of special category States, the Central government would fund 90 per cent and the States would bear the remaining 10 per cent. The scheme covers 27 States/UTs in 790 towns/cities. As per the affidavit dated January 4 filed by the government in the court, only 653 shelters were sanctioned by the States/UTs out of total 1,340 planned under NULM.

For this purpose an amount of Rs 2,185.50 crores was made available to the States/UTs and the total expenditure reported is Rs 1,222.90 crore. Commenting on this, the highest court said;

what is clear, however, is that the laudable objective with which the NULM and the scheme for urban homeless were introduced is not achieved due to ineffective implementation.” And added” “in spite of several directions issued by us, the infrastructure for the shelter homes has not been achieved.

Union of India has been constantly claiming steady progress but the NALSA report suggests to the contrary.” The court also said; “..the destitute in urban areas continue to suffer without shelters. The Union of India has formulated a Scheme and released huge amounts of money to the State governments.

The reasons for non-utilisation of funds for the welfare scheme are not forthcoming.” Terming the state of affairs on the ground extremely unsatisfactory,” the court constituted a committee with Justice Kailash Gambhir, retired judge of the Delhi High Court, as its Chairman and two other members.

The apex court directed the above said committee to cause physical verification of the available shelters in each State/UT and also to verify whether they are in compliance with the operational guidelines. The court directed the committee to inquire about the non-utilisation and/or diversion/misutilisation of the funds allocated for the said scheme and make suitable recommendations. The court has granted four months time to the Committee to submit its report.

This situation exposes the hollowness of the administration which has the audacity to ignore the directions given by the apex court. One cannot imagine the treatment a common man would be getting from such a careless, irresponsible and contemptuous administration.

Indeed, it is high time that the court took into consideration the collective liability of the persons manning the governmental administrative matters and imposed on them jointly and severally exemplary punishment. This story also unmasks political parties who by chanting slogans like “Garibi Hatao” fool the gullible poor masses and grab political power.

Benefit of doubtThe Supreme Court on November 8 acquitted two persons convicted for murder after giving them the benefit of doubt.
Nathiya and Suresh were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs.10,000, in default rigorous imprisonment for further six months was given by the Sessions Court, Vellore (TN). Subsequently, their conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court.

The apex court after going through the entire sequence of the case and hearing the arguments of both sides opined; “ on an analysis of the overall fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge is visibly incomplete and incoherent to permit conviction of the appellants on the basis thereof without any trace of doubt.

And added; “though the materials on record do raise a needle of suspicion towards them, the prosecution has failed to elevate its case from the realm of “may be true” to the plane of “must be true” as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge. ”It istrite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute to proof.

The recent judgment reiterates the verdicts of the apex court delivered in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406 and Raja @ Rajendra vs. State of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 43.

Contempt notice Perhaps in a bid to tame the unmanageable former judge of the Supreme Court, Markandey Katju, the apex court has slammed the notice on him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

No doubt, this decision must be a painful one on the part of the highest court because the alleged contemnor is none other than a person who once adored the chair of a judge of the same Court. But going by the arrogant, unsavoury and insulting recent statements of Justice Katju, it was necessary to show him the way.

Justice Katju had gone public in making demeaning statements against judiciary as well as the judges of the Supreme Court. He went to the extent of describing the judges as of backward thinking, retrograde and what not.

We, like any other law-abiding and law-respecting citizen had condemned such an unsavoury behaviour of Justice Katju in this column at least on two occasions and now we welcome the issuance of the contempt notice to Justice Katju since no body is above the law.Obviously, the nation awaits sincere remorse and unconditional apology from Justice Katju.