The High Court expressed, earlier this week, concern over the state of affairs at the wholesale fish market and the SGPDA market in Margao and issued a slew of directives to authorities. The Margao Municipal Council and the SGPDA, perennially at loggerheads, were told to work out a permanent solution to waste disposal and hygiene. Another directive was to install CCTV cameras to monitor the nuisance that has been an eyesore at the wholesale fish market.
Not too long ago, the High Court intervened when the Sonsodo woes began to overflow, and MMC became a helpless spectator. After a series of directions and consistent monitoring, the court brought about a resolution by asking MMC to transport Sonsodo wet garbage to the Saligao Treatment Plant and later to the Carcora Plant. It was only after these directives that the situation abated.
Times and again, the High Court’s intervention has been sought in essential civic matters, from garbage disposal, construction debris and even material recovery facilities. The court has repeatedly pulled up panchayats with penal action in terms of fines or restraining local bodies from issuing construction licences for failure to set up these facilities to manage garbage. It is the fundamental duty of authorities and elected representatives to ensure effective systems are put in place. The court should not be directing this, but if it does so, it means that the executive is failing.
Leave alone garbage management and hygiene, the judiciary, especially the High Court, has been in the thick of action mediating several other crucial issues that authorities have failed to handle. Take the recent case of a move to short-charge organisers of Sunburn and Rider Mania events that would eventually cause a loss to the exchequer. Or, the issue of noise pollution, which saw the court slamming police, pollution control board officials and others for failing to respect the peace of ordinary citizens.
Unfortunately, the executive is repeatedly failing in its bounden duty of addressing issues of public interest, and that does not bode well for the future but reflects a sorry state we are in.
On the flip side, while the court has brought relief in issues, given explicit directions and expressed itself with so much emotion, there are times when the executive has deceived and still managed to circumvent compliance. The sound pollution directive is a shining example.
In the case of the Margao market imbroglio, it is because of the High Court’s intervention that the MMC and SGPDA have started to voluntarily take up responsibility, a step they would otherwise have never taken. The question is whether such arrangements can last and whether the messy Margao markets could see some order, finally. Or whether this is a transient only to satisfy the court.
Lastly, while the High Court is increasingly becoming a crucial umpire in the administrative decision-making process, it must be commended for playing the role of a protector and guarantor of the fundamental rights of citizens. It would be further reassuring if the court took this a little further and set strong deterrents against non-compliance. A lot could change if stringent penal action is prescribed for sidestepping court orders.
