Article 21 applies to refugees too: Madras High Court orders ₹5 lakh compensation for Sri Lankan kin of child who died in refugee camp

The Madras High Court recently directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation to the Sri Lankan refugee parents of a child who died after a wall collapse at the refugee camp she and her family were staying in..Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench passed the order while observing that right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is applicable to all persons residing in India including refugees.The Court was informed that the wall collapse occurred in May 2014, following heavy rainfall in the area.The Court was also told that this could not be classified as an act of God because there was evidence to show that the refugee camp accommodations were structurally weak and in need of repair and upkeep.Justice Swaminathan held that the State government, which was in charge of the refugee camp, was responsible for the incident and could not escape its liability.“Having housed the petitioner's family along with others in the camp, the government was obliged to assume responsibility for their safety and well-being. The legal maxim “res ipsa loquitur” clearly applies to the case on hand. The victim had not in any way contributed to the occurrence. The wall collapse affected a few other families also. Fortunately, others escaped with injuries. The petitioner's child was not lucky. The respondents cannot escape from their liability by attributing the occurrence to act of god,” the Court said.It added that it was the State’s responsibility to ensure refugees were provided with “reasonable decent” accommodation facilities, and that they had access to clean drinking water and basic infrastructural facilities.The Court said that the “core issue” in the case was “whether a refugee like the petitioner had any fundamental right?”It cited several judgments including the Madras High Court judgment in Neyatitus v The Regional Passport Officer to say that “Article 21 of the Constitution of India is applicable to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike.”The Court, however, refrained from giving the compensation amount directly to the victim’s father who was the petitioner in the case. The judge said he was afraid that the petitioner might end up spending the entire amount on alcohol. The Court, therefore, directed the Sate to open a fixed deposit worth ₹ 5 lakh in the name of the victim’s mother and permitted her to withdraw the money after three years.“I consciously refrain from directing the payment to be made to the petitioner. It is quite possible that he is a teetotaller. I would rather err on the side of caution. I am afraid that the compensation money will find its way back to the State government's coffers via TASMAC. I, therefore, direct the government to create a fixed deposit in favour of the wife of the petitioner for a period of three years,” the Court said.Advocates AV Saha and R Alagumani appeared for Athipathi, the victim’s father and the petitioner in the case.Government Advocate NGA Nataraj appeared for the respondent-State authorities..[Read Order]