The top court at the outset of today’s hearing said that nobody doubts the enormity of the tragedy. However, it emphasised that questions regarding the assessments of liability remained.
The AG began by saying that he may be a little emotive in his submissions, to which Justice Kaul replied,
“There may have been more severe cases with less (compensation) …It is easy to be emotive. But we do not have the privilege to play to the gallery. Whole issue is under what jurisdiction are we hearing…Every dispute has to have closure…Can we keep opening some routes which are closed?”
The AG said that access to justice was key in the matter, and pointed out that the apex court had invoked its parens patriae (parent of the nation) jurisdiction earlier with respect to compensation.
Arguing that the amount offered by the respondents was a pittance, the AG stated,
“I urge this Court that some of the legal impediments be travelled through by [relying on] some of the judgments I am about to place.”
Justice Oka responded to this saying,
“Can we expand scope and take it somewhere else?“
“Lordships are sitting in a Constitution bench,” the AG replied.
Justice Kaul then quipped,
“It is like quicksand. You keep expanding everything. On the lighter side, normally the government is very hesitant to expand a case’s scope.”
The AG underscored that the Court is looking at a situation which was not fully understood in 1992, the year the review judgment was passed.
The Bench then observed that nothing stopped the Central government from taking a proactive role and increasing the compensation from its end. The Court said that in the presence of a settlement, it could not get into aspects of what would otherwise be a trial.
Source: Barandbench
