Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Endosulfan Victims: Baiju K G & Ors vs. Dr V P Joy (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 514
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Surya Kant, J.

Can a State Government ignore court orders to compensate victims of a toxic pesticide? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a contempt petition filed by victims of Endosulfan, a harmful pesticide. The court found that the Kerala government had failed to provide compensation and medical facilities to those affected, despite a previous order. This judgment emphasizes the State’s responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens and ensure timely implementation of court orders. The judgment was authored by Dr. Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and was delivered by a division bench.

Case Background

The case involves residents of Kasargod district in Kerala who suffered severe health issues due to the use of the toxic pesticide Endosulfan. These health issues included mental and physical ailments. A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India by the affected individuals. On January 10, 2017, the Supreme Court ordered State Governments to provide Rs 5 lakhs in compensation to each affected person within three months. The court also directed the state to consider providing medical facilities for the long-term health issues caused by Endosulfan. The petitioners, whose names were on the list of Endosulfan victims prepared by the Government of Kerala, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the court’s order. They stated that they had not received compensation and that medical facilities had not been improved, forcing them to travel long distances for treatment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court of India, alleging that the State of Kerala had failed to comply with the court’s order dated January 10, 2017. The State Government had not disbursed the compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to each affected person, nor had it taken adequate steps to provide medical facilities. A compliance report was filed by the Chief Secretary of the Government of Kerala on May 9, 2022, indicating that a meeting had been held on March 16, 2022, to discuss the disbursement of compensation. It also mentioned that a team of officials had been formed to visit the homes of 3704 victims. However, the court noted that only eight petitioners had received compensation.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life. The court emphasized that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life. The court also cited the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa [(1993) 2 SCC 746], which discussed the basis for awarding compensation in public law proceedings. In Nilabati Behera, the court held that the State can be held liable for failing to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, and compensation can be awarded in such cases. The court in Nilabati Behera observed that the purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights.

The Court quoted the following from Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa:

“34. The public law proceedings serve a different purpose than the private law proceedings. The relief of monetary compensation, as exemplary damages, in proceedings under Article 32 by this Court or under Article 226 by the High Courts, for established infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is a remedy available in public law and is based on the strict liability for contravention of the guaranteed basic and indefeasible rights of the citizen. The purpose of public law is not only to civilize public power but also to assure the citizen that they live under a legal system which aims to protect their interests and preserve their rights. Therefore, when the court moulds the relief by granting “compensation” in proceedings under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizen. The payment of compensation in such cases is not to be understood, as it is generally understood in a civil action for damages under the private law but in the broader sense of providing relief by an order of making ‘monetary amends’ under the public law for the wrong done due to breach of public duty, of not protecting the fundamental rights of the citizen. The compensation is in the nature of ‘exemplary damages’ awarded against the wrongdoer for the breach of its public law duty and is independent of the rights available to the aggrieved party to claim compensation under the private law in an action based on tort, through a suit instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction or/and prosecute the offender under the penal law.”

“35. This Court and the High Courts, being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to grant relief in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution to the victim or the heir of the victim whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the State to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizen, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of a civil suit or criminal proceedings…”

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the State Government had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order dated January 10, 2017, by not disbursing the compensation of Rs 5 lakhs to each affected person and by not providing adequate medical facilities. They contended that the delay in providing compensation was a violation of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. They also highlighted that they were forced to travel long distances for treatment due to the lack of local facilities. The petitioners also pointed out that the State Government had only provided compensation to those who had filed the contempt petition, which was discriminatory.

The State Government submitted a compliance report stating that they had authorized the disbursal of an additional Rs 200 crores for compensation and that a team of officials had been formed to visit the homes of the victims. However, they did not provide a clear timeline for when the compensation would be disbursed to all the victims. The State Government also did not provide sufficient details on the steps taken to improve medical facilities.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the State Government had complied with the Supreme Court’s order dated January 10, 2017, regarding compensation and medical facilities for Endosulfan victims.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the State Government had failed to comply with its order dated January 10, 2017. The court noted that the State had only disbursed compensation to the eight petitioners who had moved the contempt proceedings, which was discriminatory. The court emphasized that the State had a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all its citizens and that the delay in providing compensation and medical facilities was a violation of these rights. The court also highlighted that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court issued the following directions:

1. Costs of Rs 50,000 each were to be paid to the eight petitioners within three weeks.
2. The Chief Secretary was to hold monthly meetings to ensure the implementation of the January 10, 2017 order. This included:
   • Identifying victims of Endosulfan and drawing up a list of beneficiaries.
   • Ensuring the disbursement of Rs 5 lakhs to each victim.
   • Taking steps to ensure medical facilities within a reasonable distance from the victims’ residences.
3. An affidavit of compliance was to be filed before the next date of listing.

The Court observed that, “The inordinate delay by the State Government in compensating the persons affected by the use of Endosulfan not only reflects its failure to comply with the order of this Court but also further compounds the violation of the fundamental rights of such persons.”

The Court further stated, “The failure to redress the infringement of their fundamental rights becomes more egregious with each passing day.”

The Court also noted, “The right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Without health, the faculties of living have little meaning.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the State Government’s failure to implement its previous order to compensate and provide medical facilities to the victims of Endosulfan poisoning. The court emphasized the violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and health under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court was also concerned with the inordinate delay in providing relief to the victims, many of whom were from marginalized segments of society. The fact that the State had only compensated those who had filed the contempt petition weighed heavily on the court’s mind, indicating a discriminatory practice. The court’s focus was on ensuring that the victims received the relief they were entitled to without further delay. The Court’s reasoning was driven by a strong commitment to upholding fundamental rights and ensuring that the State is held accountable for its public duties.

Key Takeaways

• The State Government is obligated to comply with court orders, especially those related to fundamental rights.
• Failure to implement court orders can lead to contempt proceedings and additional costs.
• The right to health is an integral part of the right to life, and the State must ensure adequate medical facilities for its citizens.
• Compensation for victims of environmental damage is a public law remedy, and the State is strictly liable for contraventions of fundamental rights.
• The State cannot discriminate in disbursing compensation and must ensure that all eligible victims receive relief.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The State Government was directed to pay costs of Rs 50,000 each to the eight petitioners within three weeks.
2. The Chief Secretary of the State was directed to hold monthly meetings to ensure the implementation of the court’s order dated January 10, 2017. This included identifying victims, disbursing compensation, and ensuring medical facilities.
3. The State Government was directed to file an affidavit of compliance before the next date of listing.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the State is liable for failing to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, especially the right to life and health. It reiterates that compensation in public law proceedings is a remedy for the violation of these rights. The judgment also emphasizes the State’s duty to ensure timely implementation of court orders and to provide adequate medical facilities to those affected by environmental damage. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has emphasized the importance of enforcing the existing laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Baiju K G & Ors vs. Dr V P Joy is a strong reminder of the State’s responsibility to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens. The court’s intervention was necessary due to the Kerala government’s failure to comply with a previous order to compensate and provide medical facilities to victims of Endosulfan poisoning. The judgment underscores the importance of timely implementation of court orders and the State’s accountability for violations of fundamental rights. The court’s directions aim to ensure that the victims receive the relief they are entitled to without further delay.