Kerala High Court Critique of Centre on Wayanad Relief: A One-Sided Observation?
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Union Government has “failed” the victims of the 2024 Wayanad landslides by not waiving their loans. The court expressed strong criticism of the Centre for its reluctance, calling the banks’ recovery methods “Shylockian” and emphasizing that the Union has constitutional powers under Article 73 to protect the fundamental ‘Right to Life’ of natural disaster victims. The court also noted that the Centre had approved ₹707 crore in additional aid for Assam and Gujarat in similar situations, implying that Wayanad’s victims were treated unfairly.
My Observations:
1. Politically One-Sided Nature: The court’s observations appear politically motivated. The criticism targets the Union Government exclusively, even though, by the court’s own acknowledgment, the Centre has already released substantial funds to the State Government. There is no similar scrutiny of the State Government’s role in disaster relief or its administration of aid to Wayanad victims.
2. Legal and Procedural Context Ignored: The Centre had clarified in its affidavit that, under Reserve Bank of India provisions, a complete waiver of loans is not feasible. This legal limitation seems to have been overlooked in the court’s remarks, which focus solely on the Centre’s discretionary powers without assessing practical constraints or alternative relief measures.
3. Comparison with Other States: While the court highlighted relief given to Assam and Gujarat, it did not examine the actual form or mechanism of aid in those cases, or whether similar constraints applied. An objective assessment would require comparing the type and effectiveness of relief measures in all affected states, rather than merely noting the monetary amount.
4. One-Sided Accountability: The overall tone of the observation reflects a one-sided approach, questioning the central government while implicitly safeguarding the State Government. A balanced judicial review should consider the roles and responsibilities of both the Union and State Governments in providing relief to disaster victims.
The Kerala High Court’s observation, while highlighting the plight of Wayanad landslide victims, reflects a selective focus on the Union Government and does not provide a comprehensive examination of the legal, procedural, or comparative context. A more balanced approach would involve assessing the State Government’s efforts and the actual relief provided to victims across different states under similar conditions.
SJR Kumar
