Chennai: The recent visits by the judges of the Madurai Bench of the Madras high court at Keezhadi site in Sivagangai district and Pamban road bridge in Ramanathapuram district, indicate that they are being pro-active on important and sensitive issues involving larger public interest. However, legal experts are divided in their opinion as to whether this trend is desirable or not.
In 2013-14, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) carried out explorations in 293 sites along the Vaigai river valley in Theni, Dindigul, Madurai, Sivagangai and Ramanathapuram districts. Keezhadi in Sivagangai was chosen for excavation. The excavation was started in 2015. The first phase which spread from March to September 2015, threw up very interesting antiquities of the Sangam age. The second phase started in January 2016. In the two phases of excavation in 2015 and 2016, as many as 5,800 artefacts were unearthed from the site. The third phase of excavation started in May 2017.
Meanwhile acting on a public interest litigation filed by advocate Kanimozhi Mathim relating to excavation, a division bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court had permitted the ASI to take the excavated antiquities to the Laboratory of Archaeological Chemist at Dehradun in Uttarakhand or any other lab in the country for chemical examination and record writing. The bench had also directed the commissioner of state archaeological department to take stock of all the artefacts excavated by the ASI and record all of them on video.
While so, a division bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Satish Kumar had on September 19 inspected the excavation site at Keezhadi to take stock of the progress made thus far. The judges reportedly enquired about the progress made so far in the excavation, the different types of artefacts excavated so far, the consequent inferences made about the history of the place and preservation of artefacts.
Similarly, acting on a public interest litigation from advocate G. Thirumurugan relating to safety of the Pamban road bridge, Justices K.K. Sasidharan, G.R. Swaminathan and J. Nisha Banu had on September 17 visited the Pamban bridge to get first hand information relating to the safety of the bridge, the facilities for the pilgrims at the Sri Ramanathaswamy temple and the prevailing conditions in Dhanushkodi. In his PIL, Thirumurugan alleged frequent accidents on the Pamban road bridge after the national highways department renovated the surface with Mastic Asphalt materials and lack of facilities in a temple.
Legal experts say normally when a dispute relating to the issues pending before the court arises, the court will appoint an advocate commissioner assisted by experts in the field to make spot inspection and file a report relating to the factual position. Based on the report, the court will pass further orders or final orders. But, in these two cases, the judges themselves have inspected the two sites.
Welcoming this trend, advocate M. Velmurugan, a former member of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, says, “In pursuit of justice the courts need to walk an extra mile if warranted. When the authorities abdicate their duties and responsibilities, the courts cannot shut their eyes and remain as a mute spectator. This attempt by judiciary particularly in Keezhadi and Pamban road bridge issues would create sense, more confidence among citizens and would be an eye-opener for rulers to exercise their duties effectively. This attempt by judiciary reminds the evolution of law has evolved in PIL, which has become the Panacea for cleansing the social evils”.
Appreciating judicial activism but disagreeing with the spot inspection made by the judges, activist lawyer M. Radhakrishnan said, “It is heartening to note that public interest litigations trigger judicial activism. High court judges make spot inspection to find out the state of affairs. Will it not be desirable to have such inspection made by a team of experts? Justice demands an objective analysis of “what it is” and “what it should be”. Such objectivity cannot be achieved except by experts. Once a judge or a few judges start making spot inspection to decide a PIL, people would expect similar initiative of the judges in all PILs. Resultantly, there would be colossal wastage of judicial time. There are several issues touching human rights violations and environmental degradation. Prisons and police stations become at times torture chambers. The poor and the oppressed suffer third degree treatment day in and day out. Fake encounter deaths occur periodically. Suicides of the prisoners are on the increase. When gross human rights violations are rampant in the country demanding immediate judicial intervention, spot inspection of a religious institution by three high court judges to do justice to the pilgrims does not augur well. Keezhadi finds denote ancient urban civilization. Preservation of artefacts and excavation of the entire site are the immediate need. In the absence of a report of the eminent archaeologists, high court judges’ spot inspection may not always be useful”.
