Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy | Financial Relief Not 'Reward' For Victims But To Help Dependents: Madras HC Dismisses Plea Challenging ₹10 Lakh Compensation

Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar dismissed the plea after noting that the ex gratia payments were made on humanitarian grounds. The court noted that the relief was to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who had lost their breadwinners and were struggling economically.

“This court is of the view that the ex-gratia payment is on humanitarian grounds. The financial relief is not to reward the victims but to help the dependents of the victims who are economically weak and have lost their breadwinners in the family,” the court observed.

The court further held that the petition was filed without collecting much information challenging a relief package that was paid to ensure the survival of the victim's family with dignity. The court was thus not inclined to entertain the plea, which was challenging the policy decision of the government.

“This Court is unable to entertain this writ petition as the spirit of litigation, challenging the policy decision of the Government without even collecting the basic information about the details of the scheme cannot be approved especially when the relief package that was announced to reach the dependents of victims to ensure their survival with dignity,” the court said.

The petition was filed by D Kumaresh, a social worker seeking directions to the state not to distribute Rs 10 Lakh to victims of the Kallakurichi Hooch tragedy. Kumaresh argued that people who engaged in such illegalities could not be encouraged by rewarding them for their illegal conduct. He pointed out that the persons who lost their lives were not martyrs but had failed to abide by law and the incident was due to the illegal consumption of illicit liquor.

Kumaresh submitted that though it was a policy decision of the State, the court could interfere since it related to the welfare of the people and there was no justification for distributing Rs. 10 lakh to each of the victims of the tragedy.

The Advocate General PS Raman informed the court that the state had announced the package for members of the victim's families on compassionate grounds to tide over the economic crisis faced by the dependent. He submitted that in some cases, the children of victims had even lost their parents and had no one to support them.

The court noted that in a democracy, it was the prerogative of the government to follow its own policy and unless any illegality was committed or the policy itself was unconstitutional, the court could not interfere. The court added that in matters of social reform or economic policy, the wisdom of the government is not amenable to judicial review unless it is shown that the policy is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.

In the present case, the court observed that Kumaresh had not produced any record and had approached the court without any search or an understanding of the actual scheme announced by the government.

Thus, noting that the petitioner had approached the court with half-baked information, the court said that it was unable to appreciate the contentions and thus dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A.Kumanaraja

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.A, Edwin Prabakar Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 310

Case Title: D Kumaresh v The Chief Secretary

Case No: WP.No.20521/2024