Has the Supreme Court abdicated its responsibility over the Migrant Worker crisis?

Millions of India’s migrant labourers are struggling to access aid to survive the lockdown in the states where they work and appealing for help from officials back home.

How can we stop migrants from walking”, the Supreme Court asked on May 15, 2020. The observation from the top court came on a plea filed by lawyer Alakh Alok Srivastava pointing out the loss of migrant lives in accidents – on train tracks and roads – as many chose to walk to their native towns in the absence of any public transport.

The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court said, “it was not possible for the court to monitor who is walking and who is not walking”. The bench asked the petitioner to implement the government directives and replied “We will give you a special pass and you can go and check.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, said the government has already started helping the migrant workers, but some are not waiting for their turn, instead start walking back home.

“Everybody would get to reach their destination. They must wait for their turn rather than starting on foot,” contended Mehta before the bench. Mehta informed the Court that subject to agreement between the states everybody will get a chance to travel. “Using force can be counterproductive,” submitted Mehta.

While the Solicitor General argued that using force “would be counterproductive”, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Yogi Adityanath directed district administrations to form special police teams to stop migrant workers from travelling on their own.

This mindset seems to have been abetted by the solicitor general, who not only considers public interest litigations (PILs) anathema but is also thoroughly disapproving of citizens who file PILs. What is disturbing, indeed shocking, is that various benches of the apex court have accepted some statements made by the solicitor general which are patently contrary to the facts on the ground.

Petitions related to migrants show the Supreme Court abdicating its authority in deference to the executive.

On 8^th of May, 16 migrants were run over by a goods train while they were sleeping on the railway tracks and when the issue was raised, the Supreme Court said, “How can anybody stop this when they sleep on railway tracks?”

Several activists and lawyers have approached the Supreme Court over the last few weeks, in attempt to help the plight of migrant workers walking to their home states hundreds and thousands of kilometers. The Court seems to have blindly accepting the submissions of the solicitor General who said that there aren’t any migrants walking. The Court was expected to act as the guardian of the rights of these workers. But has the Supreme Court fared poorly, not doing much to assuage the sufferings of the workers?

Justice Deepak Gupta who retired as the Judge of the Supreme Court earlier this month said in his farewell speech that under the Constitution, a very important role of protecting the rights of the citizen lies with the superior courts and the Supreme Court under Article 32, has its duty to ensure that every citizen of this country has a life of dignity and he is not deprived of right to life, guaranteed to him under Article 21.

He added, “In times of crisis, especially a crisis like this it is not you and I, whose constitutional rights will be violated. It's the poorest of the poor, whose constitutional rights are always violated. It is these people who have no voice, who suffer. And therefore, if someone who raises the voice for them, I think the courts should at least hear them. Give them a patient hearing, and then if something can be done for them, please do it, if something can't be done, then the petition has to be dismissed but we must make an attempt to help the poor.”

The Supreme Court has refrained to show such compassion and benignity while dealing with the apathy the migrant workers are facing.

Where the Court was expected to suo motu revive the PIL and act towards the sorry state of affairs in the country with respect to the migrant worker issue, it has not done so.

A similar petition on the workers’ plight met with the same fate when the Supreme Court observed that it was impossible for courts to monitor or stop the movement of migrant workers across the country and it is for the duty of the government to take necessary action in this regard.

On the other hand, the High Courts have shown empathy on the issue. The Madras High Court raised questions about the measures taken to help the migrants and file a status report by May 22.

Similarly, Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the state government to take specific measures under different heads, including medical, transportation and food. The Karnataka High Court and the Gujarat High Court too have taken up the Migrant workers issues and sought response from their respective state governments.

Whether the Apex Court of the largest democracy in the world shows any sympathy and compassion while dealing with this issue is something we will have to wait and watch.