When ECI Goes To Remotest Region To Ensure Voting, State Must Also Ensure That Facilities And Welfare Reach These People: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on Wednesday remarked that when the Election Commission of India could go to the remotest location to ensure that the people exercise their franchise, it was the constitutional duty of the government to ensure that basic facilities and benefits of the welfare schemes reach the people. “When the Election Commission goes even to the remotest region of the country...
The Madras High Court on Wednesday remarked that when the Election Commission of India could go to the remotest location to ensure that the people exercise their franchise, it was the constitutional duty of the government to ensure that basic facilities and benefits of the welfare schemes reach the people.
“When the Election Commission goes even to the remotest region of the country to ensure that everyone exercise their franchise, correspondingly, the State has to ensure that the facilities and welfare schemes have reached these people. It is the constitutional duty, mandated on the State. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to consider these issues on receipt of comprehensive report from the State,” the court said.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan was hearing the suo motu writ petition initiated by the bench to look into the manufacture and sale of illicit arrack by the people of Kalvarayan hills in light of the recent Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy.
While taking suo motu cognizance, the court had noted that the poverty and want of livelihood had forced men and women of the region to resort to the manufacture of illicit liquor and steps had to be taken for the economic and social welfare of the people.
On Wednesday, the court expressed shock when it learned that the area was annexed with the Indian territory only in the year 1976 and that voting rights were given to the people in the area only in 1996. The court noted that being the situation, the development in the location would be behind other parts of the State and would need more focused attention.
The court also noted that media reports and documentaries were saying that there was a lack of basic infrastructural facilities in the region. The court thus asked the Government to specify the welfare schemes made available to the people in the region, whether the people had access to all basic facilities, and the efforts made by the Government for the promotion and welfare of the people who majorly belonged to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community.
The court also called upon all persons including media and other interested persons who have studied the area to assist the court and enable it to address the issue in a pragmatic manner. the court further appointed Senior Counsel Tamilmani as Amicus Curiae.
Case Title: Suo Motu Writ Petition v The Chief Secretary
Case No: WP 19030 of 2024