|
|
|
|
| By Samudranil Mukherjee |
|
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 (10:24:05) |
| Tags : Mangalore, India, Public Interest Litigations, Supreme Court, Karnataka High Court |
Mangalore air crash reveals laxities in Indian judiciary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New Delhi, May 26: The fateful plane crash at Mangalore on 22nd May has brought forth some serious issues with the judicial system in India. This tragedy has revealed the apathetic attitude of Indian courts towards public interest litigations. It has been revealed that the Supreme Court and the Karnataka High Court had both dismissed public interest litigations against the worrisome table top location of the Mangalore airport where 158 lives were lost to one of the worst accidents in Indian aviation industry.
A local NGO in Karnataka, named Environment Support Group had registered the original public interest case in 1997 when the second runway, of the Mangalore airport, adjacent to the gorge was being planned. The case, if given proper importance by the legal powers-that-be would have saved 158 lives. Instead it was dismissed by the state high court when the Airports Authority of India labeled the appellants as troublesome entities that were neither concerned about public safety nor the particular project.
In 1998, a judicial bench at the High Court, made up of Justices AM Farooq and Y Bhaskar Rao had accepted assurances of the Airports Authority of India that they would be consulting with the International Civil Aviation Organisation regarding emergency landing of planes before the project started.
They had stated their confidence that the Airports Authority of India would be acting as per the suggestions of the ICAO before they proceeded with the project. They termed the litigation as a premature one as it had been filed before the project had actually taken off.
The construction company responsible for the project had been unable to meet the required safety norms, following which the ESG had registered its second PIL. However, this too met with disapproval from the Karnataka High Court, who stated that the second runway was serving public interest. The ESG moved the Supreme Court, which upheld the previous verdict. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Post your comment |
|---|
| |
| | Reader Comments |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email Story
Write to the editor
Print Story