New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday told advocate Prashant Bhushan that it is not hostage to the government and asked him that if he didnt have faith in the institution, why should the court hear him.
A bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and B.R. Gavai questioned Bhushan, representing petitioners Jagdeep S. Chhokar and advocate Gaurav Jain, that why should the court hear him if he had no faith in the institution. Chhokar is the former director in-charge of IIM Ahmedabad.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, during the hearing, drew the court's attention to a recent tweet by Bhushan. Justice Kaul told Bhushan that "every time there is an order where you do not get relief, you insult the institution".
"You cast aspersion on the judges, you don't have any respect for the constitutional bodies. You don't have faith in the judiciary," Kaul said.
Justice Gavai also pulled up Bhushan, saying "if you don't have faith in this institution, why should we hear you at all?"
Bhushan replied that the government's views were being blindly accepted. "I am only expressing my anguish. I feel the Centre's assertions are being believed without verification. The court is accepting whatever the government is stating without verifying," Bhushan submitted before the bench.
Bhushan insisted that the fundamental rights of the migrant workers were not being acknowledged. He submitted before the bench that this institution has been created by the Constitution, and there is violation of fundamental rights of these migrant workers and he is entitled to express discontent.
He added that he could be wrong but a similar opinion has been also expressed by some retired judges. The Solicitor General told Bhushan that he should not be under the impression that he is the only one who is concerned with the enforcement of fundamental rights, as the Centre is very much concerned. He insisted that the Centre is trying to extend all possible help to the migrant workers.
The top court asked the Centre to reply on a plea, which sought directions to authorities to allow migrant workers return to their native places after being tested for coronavirus.
Bhushan said that he is willing to withdraw from the matter, if there is an objection to his representation in the case. The bench replied that it never asked him to withdraw. He insisted that 90 per cent of migrant workers have not received ration or wages, and they should be allowed to return to their homes.
Mehta questioned Bhushan on the validity of the data. He said the Centre is consulting the states on the issue of migrant workers, which includes transportation and all possible help for them.
The bench asked Mehta if the Centre is in consultation with the states and is ready to examine the issue.
Bhushan urged the court to allow inter-state transportation of migrant workers which was objected to by Mehta saying that it is for the government to look into all aspects keeping the larger interest of people in mind.
The Solicitor General requested the court to not issue notice and give directions on the plea as it would send wrong message and instead he would file a reply within two weeks.
The bench said it is giving one week time to Centre to respond whether there is any proposal on allowing inter-state transportation of migrant workers.
Meanwhile, the top court disposed of intervention applications filed by advocate Alakh Alok Srivastava on the issue of stopping inter-state migration of workers and said that it is the Central government to look into the issue.
The top court said it is not the coordinating agency between the Centre and states, and the Union government has to take necessary action in this regard.
Chhokar and Jain in their plea had said that in wake of the extension of the nationwide lockdown, the migrant workers who are among the worst affected category of people must be allowed to go back to their homes after being tested for COVID-19.
It said that those migrant workers who test negative for COVID-19 must not be forcefully kept in shelters or away from their homes and families against their wishes.
It said that although the national lockdown has been necessitated because of the unprecedented pandemic of COVID-19 and its imposition is much needed, it is submitted by the petitioners that the fundamental right of the migrant workers enshrined under Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely throughout India) and Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution (right to reside and settle in any part of India) cannot be suspended for an indefinite period.
It said that these migrant workers cannot be forced to stay away from their families and living in unpredictable and arduous conditions, as the same is an unreasonable restriction beyond what is envisaged under Article 19(5) of the Constitution.
The petition said that necessary transport services may be provided by the state governments in abundance so that the purpose of 'social distancing' is not defeated.