Court Verdict: Sikh victims of November 1984 can not be treated like Kashmiri Pandits
Published: November 13, 2011
Note: Text of following judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court is made available to Sikh Siyasat Network by Advocate Navkiran Singh.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 19132 of 2011
Date of decision 13.10.2011
Sikhs for Justice . . . Petitioner
Union Territory, Chandigarh … Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?
1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh to allot booths and houses and other concessions including issuance of identity cards to the victims of 1984 Sikh riots as has been done in favour of the Kashmiri migrants in the Union Territory Chandigarh in the year 1990 and thereafter. A perusal of the averments made in the petition shows that a large number of Sikhs had fallen victims of communal frenzy by unscrupulous people. Likewise living in Kashmir lead to exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir. According to the averments facilities are being provided to such migrants of Kashmir by the Union Territory Administration like monthly relief and free ration. Moreover, they have also been allotted dwelling units in Indira Colony in Manimajra as well as built up booths in Chandigarh.
2. The petitioner has earlier filed CWP No. 7004 of 2011 which was withdrawn with liberty to approach the Union Territory Administration.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and are of the view that when policy is framed by the State Governments by keeping in view the rehabilitation of certain migrants, then huge financial liability is involved. To a query posed by the Court, the learned counsel was not able to give any satisfactory answer as to how the Court can issue directions for framing of a policy which have huge financial implications. It is for the State Government to frame policies. It appears that the problem in Kashmir is alive and whereas it is apparent that the problems of 1984 victims is past us. We are not inclined to entertain the instant petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
Acting Chief Justice
(Rajiv Narain Raina)