'Calculate disability as per earning capacity'

Form panel on endosulfan victims, HC directs govt

The High Court of Karnataka on Monday directed the State government to calculate the percentage of disability of endosulfan victims based on an individual’s earning capacity and not his or her medical assessment.

During the hearing of a suo motu petition on rehabilitation of endosulfan victims in Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada and Udupi districts, a division bench comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice Ram Mohan Reddy sought to know the methodology adopted by the government to calculate the percentage of disability.

Amicus curiae Vaishali Hegde submitted that persons suffering from cancer and those who have become visually challenged due to endosulfan had been categorised as persons with less than 25 percent disability and hence were denied stipend. The bench questioned the government counsel on the rationale behind such classification.

The amicus curiae said that the government has fixed 1980 as the benchmark year for paying compensation to victims suffering from congenital disorders. Accordingly, those born in 1980 and later will be eligible to receive compensation. It was in 1980 that spraying of endosulfan on cashew plantations began. The amicus curiae pointed out that the policy adopted was unfair.

The government counsel submitted that the State government had earmarked Rs seven crore for paying compensation and the process of identifying the beneficiaries would be completed by March 2015.

The bench later directed the government to form a committee comprising representatives of district legal services authority and members of non-governmental organisations to monitor the rehabilitation process, and named the amicus curiae as the chairperson of the committee. The matter was adjourned to February 2.

Jayalalitha case
Former Additional Solicitor General L Nageshwara Rao appearing for former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalitha in the disproportionate assets case, claimed on Monday that none of Jayalalitha’s aides was a public servant and hence their sentencing under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act was incorrect.

During the hearing of the appeal by Jayalalitha and others challenging their conviction in disproportionate assets case, the counsel said that the three aides of Jayalalitha were not her blood relatives and hence sentencing them under Benami Transactions Act, was also incorrect. He claimed that the prosecution had failed to furnish enough documents in the trial court to substantiate its case. The special bench of Justice C R Kumaraswamy adjourned the hearing to Tuesday.

Renaming cities
The High Court has directed the State government to submit details of process followed in renaming the 12 cities and towns in the State. During the hearing of a petition challenging the renaming of Gulbarga and Kalaburagi, a bench headed by Chief Justice D H Waghela sought to know whether the decision on renaming was taken on the floor of the Assembly.

The petitioners had contended that the government had no powers to rename towns and cities and sought to know the compulsion for such an exercise.

The bench observed that the new names are the ones known prior to the British rule. The British had changed the names of the places to suit their convenience since they could not pronounce them.  The bench directed the government counsel to submit details on the procedure followed by the government to change the names of the cities and towns. The matter was adjourned to January 14.