SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 994

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.
Tamil Nadu Centre For Public Interest Litigation, Rep By K.K. Ramesh - Petitioners
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. – Respondents
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 9839 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:- C.R. Jaya Sukin, Narender Kumar Verma, Advs.

The State has an obligation to address the distressing conditions of farmers and take prompt ameliorative measures to address the issue of farmer suicides.

Headnote:

Farmers - State Obligation to Address Distressing Conditions - The court emphasized the obligation of the State to address the distressing conditions of farmers and highlighted the need for preventive and curative measures to address the issue of farmer suicides.

Fact of the Case:

The petition relates to the deaths of farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu, highlighting the significance of agriculture and the exclusive dependence of farmers on it for sustenance.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court failed to appreciate the real grievance highlighted in the writ petition and directed the petitioner to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, without addressing the core issue. The Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist in the matter and directed the State to come up with ameliorative measures by the next date of hearing.

Issues: Failure of the High Court to address the real grievance, obligation of the State to address distressing conditions of farmers, and the need for preventive and curative measures to address farmer suicides.

Ratio Decidendi: The State has an obligation to express concern and sensitiveness towards the distressing conditions of farmers and take prompt ameliorative measures to address the issue of farmer suicides.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, appointed an amicus curiae, and directed the State to come up with ameliorative measures by the next date of hearing.

Act Referred

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • constitutional law
    • welfare state
      • social justice
        • state obligation to citizens (Para 4, 9)
  • administrative law
    • practice and procedure
      • amicus curiae (Para 5)

Table of Contents

1. Special leave petition regarding farmer deaths due to famine and financial distress and the State's failure to implement ameliorative measures. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioner contends the High Court failed to address the core grievance, erroneously directing the petitioner to seek information under the Right to Information Act. (Para 2 , 3 )

3. The State, acting in loco parentis, is obligated in a welfare state to implement curative measures to address the distressing conditions and suicides of farmers. (Para 4 )

4. In a welfare state, the State acts as a guardian (in loco parentis) and is obligated to take proactive, curative measures to prevent citizen distress and suicides. (Para 4 )

5. Notice issued to the State to treat the matter as participative litigation and propose schemes or measures to address the farmers' grievances. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )

6. What is the State's role and obligation toward citizens in a welfare state facing catastrophes like farmer suicides?

The State stands in loco parentis to its citizens and is obligated to express concern and take curative measures to address distressing conditions, ensuring that poverty-stricken citizens are not left to fatalism. (Para 4 )

7. How should the State approach litigation concerning the welfare of its citizens in a democratic body polity?

The State should treat such matters as participative rather than adversarial litigation, proactively proposing ameliorative schemes and measures to address the gravity of the situation. (Para 9 )

ORDER

The present special leave petition depicts a picture which has the potentiality to disturb the conscience of any sensitive soul, for it relates to deaths of farmers, which has its significance in a society where agriculture is of paramount importance and most of the farmers exclusively depend upon the same for their sustenance.

2. It is submitted by Mr. C.R. Jaya Sukin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the High Court has failed to appreciate the real grievance that was highlighted in the writ petition and has disposed of the same by directing the petitioner to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court, we find that it has really not touched the issue that was required to be appositely dealt with.

3. On a perusal of the special leave petition and the averments made, we notice that the petitioner has suggested certain aspects by which the conditions of the farmers can be ameliorated. That apart, it is highlighted that it is the obligation of the State to address the distressing conditions of the farmers who are compelled to commit suicide for many a reason. As is reflectible, the suggestions are demarcated into two compartments, namely, preventive and curative.

4. The State stands on the position of a loco parentis to the citizens and when there are so many deaths of farmers in the State of Tamil Nadu, it becomes obligatory on the part of the State to express concern and sensitiveness to do the needful and not allow the impecunious and poverty stricken farmers to resign to their fate or leave the downtrodden and the poor to yield to the idea of fatalism. The concept is alien in the welfare State and the social justice which is required to be translated in a democratic body polity. As is manifest from the assertions and the grievances that have been agitated, deaths are due to famine backdrop and other natural causes and also due to immense financial problem. The State, as the guardian, is required to see how to solve these problems or to meet the problems by taking curative measures treating it as a natural disaster. Silence is not the answer.

5. In such a situation, we have thought it appropriate to have the assistance of an amicus curiae and accordingly we appoint Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, learned counsel as an amicus curiae to assist the Court.

6. Issue notice returnable within two weeks.

7. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.

8. Additionally, Registry is directed to serve a copy of the special leave petition on Mr. M. Yogesha Kanna, learned standing counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. Registry is also directed to supply a copy of the special leave petition to Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, learned counsel who has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.

9. We have granted two weeks time for service of notice as we expect the authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu, who are arrayed as respondents herein, not to remotely treat it as an adversarial litigation but a participative litigation and take up certain ameliorative measures so that the agony of the farmers is addressed. It will be appreciated if the respondents come with certain schemes/measures by the next date of hearing. We say so as there is an expectation on the part of the citizens that the State shall come to their aid when such a catastrophe occurs and the State's response must be in promptitude so that the gravity of the situation does not get a geometrical progression which may later on become difficult to handle.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top