A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan on Thursday directed that the States share the train and bus fares of migrants returning home. Also, that stranded migrants should be provided food by respective State governments. The Railways were directed to provide food to the migrants on their journey home.
On the face of it, the apex court intervention is unexceptionable. It had suo motu taken up the matter of the migrants in an earlier sitting as well and passed some orders. Probably, the court was swayed by the media criticism about its alleged failure to intervene in the migrant issue. And therefore it chose to pass a few anodyne orders. The respective state and central authorities were expected to take all possible steps to alleviate the hardships of the migrant workers stemming from the lockdown imposed with the objective of containing the coronavirus pandemic. If it is granted that the lockdown was necessary to try and keep the fatalities from the malignant virus low, it would follow that most people must also be prepared to put up with the resulting hardships. But the problems for the migrants were compounded by their lack of income. Allowing them to return home risked spreading the virus deep in the rural hinterland. How anyone could have handled the migrant problem differently is not clear. Because the lockdown was extended repeatedly and there was no knowing when the economy would reopen, the authorities subsequently allowed the migrants to return home. As a result, the number of infections in various states has risen sharply. In short, arm-chair critics of the migrant handling speak with the benefit of hindsight. Decision-makers do not have that luxury. It is why the initial reluctance of the apex court to wade into the issue was welcome. Professional PIL-movers and other NGOwallas were critical of the court for not taking a more activist role in the matter. The court cannot, and should not, be encouraged to take the role of the executive at the drop of a hat merely because a few professional activists, instigated further by the Opposition, were out to embarrass the ruling party. Micro-managing the coronavirus crisis was in no way a function of the court. Nor could the court have considered how the millions of migrants would have paid their rents for the lockdown period.
To direct on a humanitarian basis that the fare of the returning migrants be paid by the respective state authorities when actually it was already being paid by them is fine. Beyond that, it would be an uncalled for judicial meddling in the domain of the executive. Empathy for the human suffering in the lockdown is not the sole monopoly of the NGOs and a few activists. The executive and the judiciary cannot perform their respective roles by foregrounding a display of empathy alone while abandoning all concern for a considered policy package to deal with the deadly virus.
