Legal Lethargy That Kills
Our country is said to have the highest per capita rate of law-making and law-breaking. The laws are proliferating so rapidly that there is hardly any time to take a second look at the old laws. As a result, the century-old Indian Penal Code equates a two-month jail term with a fine of Rs 50. And the colonial legislations on post and telegraph are innocent of the knowledge of modern communication channels.
This negligence is more dangerous when it affects our health and well-being. One such hazardous area was pointed out last week by the Supreme Court in the Insecticides Act (Dr Ashok vs Union of India).
According to this Act, an insecticide listed in the schedule can be registered and manufactured with some regulations. However, the law does not provide for cancellation of the registration if the same substance is found to be harmful to plants and animals. So the court has asked the government to amend the legislation taking into account current realities.
The court was dealing with a number of appeals by insecticide firms which had challenged the ban on Benzene Hexachloride from April 1 this year. The court dismissed all of them. It also dealt with a public interest petition which had sought a ban on 40 insecticides proven to be harmful. The court observed that the government has already banned most of them and was taking necessary steps in the case of others. Thus, the petition was disposed of.
What prompted the court to recommend amendments in the Insecticides Act was the rapid scientific developments in recent years which led to the blacklisting of several insecticides which had been considered beneficial so far.
A clear case is that of DDT. At one time it was freely used in agriculture, and played no small part in the green revolution. But recently, it was found that it was dangerous to living beings. As a result, the US, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and several other countries totally banned its use. In India, it is still being manufactured by the public sector firm, Hindustan Insecticides Ltd, for limited use.
DDT is only one instance of hazardous chemicals still in use in India while most advanced countries have prohibited their use. In many cases, even banned chemicals are freely available in the countryside. Manufacture of Aaldrin, Ethylene Dibromide and Dieldrin are banned but the enforcement of the ban is tardy, as in the case of a lot of banned medicines, still sold over the counter.
One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the lacunae in laws as in the case of the Insecticides Act. Once the harmful chemical gets into the schedule of the Act, it is difficult to get it out, even if science discovers that the substance is injurious to health. Parliamentarians are too busy tinkering with new laws which invite applause (like anti-tobacco laws), to take necessary action in such cases.
Privileged papers
The mantra of privilege seems to be the last refuge of a hounded government. When public interest petitioners in the multi-crore sugar scam (George Mathew vs Union of India) sought certain documents relating to the Gyanprakash Committee which was in a muddle, the central government promptly raised the red flag of privilege in the Supreme Court last week.
The enquiry report itself has now become public. Therefore, the questionnaire and other related papers are no longer confidential. However, the court decided to hear the question of privilege and lay down the law in this matter.
As early as in 1981, a constitution bench had laid down the basic principles on privilege as regards cabinet papers. It had stated that normally such documents should be made available to the court in a public interest case. The only exceptions are papers relating to the defence and security of the country.
In this case the judges observed that public interest would be promoted if there is transparency in the enquiry. However, since the government raised this defence almost every other day, the court decided to consider the question again. All the government perhaps earned was only a breather.
Contract labour
The dispute between the Airports Authority of India and its contract workers over their regularisation has made several rounds in the Supreme Court. The court disposed of a large batch last week (International Airports Authority Employees Union vs Airport Authority), hoping this would be the last.
The court had directed the authority to regularise the employees in its two judgments passed last year. However, fresh disputes arose over the date from which they should be absorbed. The Supreme Court ruled that it would be effective from the date when the high court passed its order.
Since the workers had been working for a long time even before contract labour was abolished, the authorities were directed to compute the previous length of service too from the date of appointment by contract to calculate retirement benefits. The cases of some sections of the workers were remitted to the Bombay high court.
The Airports Authority is not the only government employer which had problems with contract labour. The court has dealt with contract labour in the railways, public sector corporations and public works departments. It has also passed severe strictures in some cases. Perhaps the present case will prod them to act more equitably towards contract labour.
One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the lacunae in laws as in the case of the Insecticides Act. Once the harmful chemical gets into the schedule of the Act, it is difficult to get it out.