The Kerala High Court severely criticised both the Centre and State government over the secrecy being maintained with regard to the disaster relief and rehabilitation funds pertaining to the landslides that ravaged Wayanad in July.
A bench comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C.P. ordered the personal appearance of the Finance Officer from the State Disaster Management Authority to the hearing on Saturday to produce the accounts relating to this.
The court also asked some burning questions, such as what was the requirement of funds for reconstruction in the landslide-affected areas, how much was the likely financial assistance from the Centre, and what was the availability of funds before the disaster struck. The court specifically sought to know the balance available under the relief fund and how much of the allocated funds by the Centre had been spent.
The bench said that further orders would be passed after these queries were sufficiently answered. The scrutiny came during the hearing of a PIL filed by the court suo motu on disaster prevention and management in the wake of the landslides that killed over 200 people and washed away three villages in Wayanad district.
Two weeks ago, the Centre told the court that a high-level committee had sanctioned ₹153 crore from the NDRF for Wayanad landslides-related relief. It added that a fresh proposal of the Kerala government for ₹2,219 crore for recovery and rehabilitation, moved on November 13 was still pending consideration.
Reacting to the Centre’s affidavit, Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan termed the information as “misleading.” He explained that the ₹153 crore referred to was part of the funds assigned to the state every year on the basis of the recommendations of the Finance Commission and had to be utilized only according to the guidelines laid down. “This means not a penny has been given as assistance to the state as help,” he said.
Protests have rocked Wayanad, with both the CPI(M)-led LDF and the Congress-led UDF conducting hartals, demanding more realistic and comprehensive financial assistance from the Centre for rehabilitation work. The High Court termed these protests “irresponsible” and asked what good the protests would do, other than increasing the people’s sufferings.
