The Supreme Court on Tuesday termed “wholly uncalled for” the Kerala Government’s relaxations for Eid-al-Adha (Bakrid) in areas with a high Covid-19 positivity rate and said giving in to pressure from traders discloses a “sorry state of affairs”.
Pressure groups of all kinds, religious or otherwise, cannot in any manner interfere with the most precious fundamental “Right to Life” of all the citizens of the country, the apex court said.
The apex court directed the Kerala Government to give heed to Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and follow the law laid down in its orders passed in the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Kanwar Yatra matter.
While hearing the UP Kanwar Yatra matter on July 16, the top court had observed that all sentiments, including religious, were subservient to the Right to Life. A Bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai noted it is “extremely alarming” that in category D areas, where infection is the highest at 15 per cent, a full day of relaxation was granted in Kerala on Monday.
During the hearing, Mehta said that this case was brought to light three months ago and as soon as the State Government had noticed the fact, the charges were revoked. He said the State Government has not defended the plea for release of the activist and therefore the matter should be allowed to rest here. The bench noted Mehta's submission that Erendro was released in compliance with the interim direction issued on Monday and charges against him under the NSA provision and the detention were revoked.
Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for Erendro's father who moved the plea, said that his prayer is for compensation as five cases were cited against the activist and no charge sheet was filed in any of them. The bench said, "We issue notice on the compensation aspect and you (Mehta) can file a reply on this aspect". Mehta said that this could have been avoided by a pragmatic approach but he will again urge that the matter should be allowed to rest as the petition was filed after three months. He said the state will have to satisfy the order on merits and this could have been avoided by a little pragmatic approach. Farasat submitted that in this case responsibility has to be fixed for the "illegal detention" since May 17.
