The High Court on Wednesday directed the state government to reply to Kashmir Bar Association’s plea seeking compensation for victims of pellet ammunition used by government forces for controlling protests in Kashmir.
A division bench of acting chief Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar directed state counsel BA Dar to file response to the Bar Public Interest Litigation that also seeks details from director SKIMS, Soura, principal SKIMS Medical College Bemina, director health services Kashmir and medical superintendent SMHS Hospital about the pellet victims who were admitted to these hospitals or to district hospitals, sub-district hospitals and primary health centers for treatment.
The court also directed the government to respond to the Bar plea asking the government to call competent and well-trained surgeons from outside the state for treatment of pellet victims who were not willing to go outside for treatment.
The court sought the response from the government by June 1, the next date of hearing.
As soon as the PIL came up for hearing today, advocate Mian Abdul Qayoom on behalf of Bar pleaded that the government should be directed to furnish details of persons affected by use of pellets since 2010.
Qayoom said the details should include the number of persons whose one eye or both eyes were damaged and the treatment they have been provided.
“Is there any policy for rehabilitation of these victims? If yes, the court should be informed about such policy,” Qayoom said.
In an SLP, the Bar had approached the Supreme Court against J&K High Court’s 22 September 2016 order rejecting the plea by lawyers’ body seeking ban on use of pellet guns for crowd control.
The Bar had informed the Supreme Court that pellet guns cannot be used as means of crowd control under the Constitution of India, Code of Criminal Procedure as well as international covenants.
For other relief sought by the Bar PIL, the High Court had, however, admitted the writ petition to hearing and directed the authorities concerned to file a detailed counter affidavit.
The court had made it clear that the pendency of the writ petition with regard to other pleas would not bar the state government from paying compensation to the deserving family members of the deceased persons or to the injured persons as it may deem fit and proper.
The court had directed the concerned authorities to ensure all injured persons were extended adequate medical treatment and provided all possible required medical treatment to them.
“If specialists are not available in the state, appropriate arrangement has to be made to treat the patients by inviting specialists in the State or to shift the patients to hospitals outside the State wherever specialists are available,” High Court had said.
With regard to use of excessive force in quelling protests, the court had said: “Whether in a particular situation or place the use of force is excessive or not can be ascertained only after investigation and finding rendered by some authority or court factually.”
The Court had also declined the plea to prosecute officers who took the decision of using pellets at protestors and those who actually fired them.