Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently observed that a refugee has to be housed in reasonably decent accommodation. The basic infrastructural facilities must be available along with access to the fundamental amenities such as sanitation, health care, clean drinking water etc, said the court. 

The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan held, "When the right to shelter and housing has been recognised internationally as a human right, it cannot be denied to the refugees living in a camp".

Court added that in such refugee camps, privacy of women and young girls who are housed there must be ensured. Otherwise, there is no meaning in declaring privacy as a fundamental right, said the court. 

Court observed so while dealing with a writ petition filed by a Srilankan refugee father seeking Rs 10 lakh compensation for the death of her 11-year-old daughter who had died due to the demolition of the Thiruvadavur refugees camp house on May 12, 2014. 

The side wall of the camp had collapsed due to a downpour and the petitioner's daughter got caught under the debris. 

Court noted that though the District Collector, Madurai had submitted a proposal way back in March 2012 seeking allotment of funds for enhancing the infrastructural facilities in the refugee camp, the funds came to be allotted only in the year 2015-16.

"It appears that the construction was put up in the year 1995. The officials obviously had doubts regarding the structural stability of the wall and that is why, proposal was mooted for reconstruction. Having housed the petitioner's family along with others in the camp, the government was obliged to assume responsibility for their safety and well-being," said the court. 

Referring to two of his own judgments, Justice Swaminathan noted that in Harina v. Regional Passport Officer, Tiruchirappalli (2023) and Neyatitus v. the Regional Passport Officer, Madurai (2023) he had cataloged quite a few rights of the Srilankan refugees.

"Article 21 of the Constitution of India is applicable to all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike," he said. 

While pointing out that Sri Lankan refugees have been living in camps at various places in Tamil Nadu for quite a few decades, court opined that the doles handed out by the government can hardly be sufficient to keep one's body and soul together.

Regarding the case at hand, court noted that the victim had not in any way contributed to the occurrence. 

"The wall collapse affected a few other families also. Fortunately, others escaped with injuries. The petitioner's child was not lucky. The respondents cannot escape from their liability by attributing the occurrence to “act of god"," said the court. 

Court held that although it was true that only on account of the heavy rains and wind, the untoward incident took place, but then, the construction should have been such as to withstand such eventualities.

However, regarding the compensation to the family of the deceased, although court held the state government liable to pay Rs 5 lakh compensation to the petitioner, it refrained from directing the payment to be made to the petitioner.

Instead, court directed the government to create a fixed deposit in favour of the wife of the petitioner for a period of three years. "The petitioner's wife shall be entitled to draw interest every two months. At the end of the three year period, the fixed deposit can be withdrawn by her," ordered the court. 

Case Title: Athipathi v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, TN and Others