- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court orders State of Kerala to give Rs. 5 lakh compensation to four victims in Endosulfan case
[ By Titus Manickam Rock ]The Supreme Court Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee ordered that four Endosulfan victims be given compensation of Rs.5 lakh each in a contempt petition filed by the four affected persons. The Apex Court frowned on the State of Kerala’s reluctance to follow its earlier order.The petitioner contended that the Kerala government had failed to...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee ordered that four Endosulfan victims be given compensation of Rs.5 lakh each in a contempt petition filed by the four affected persons. The Apex Court frowned on the State of Kerala’s reluctance to follow its earlier order.
The petitioner contended that the Kerala government had failed to provide compensation to the victims of the insecticide Endosulfan used in various plantations and had caused grievous health problems to residents in the district of Kasargode in the state of Kerala. A Government Order (GO) passed in December 2012 by the state government just remained on paper.
The petitioner also pointed to the disobedience of the State Government to the Supreme Court’s order passed in January, 2017 wherein the Apex Court had directed the State to pay Rs.5 lakhs each to all the affected persons within 3 months.
The Apex Court observed the State Government had no justification for denying the payment of compensation to the victims and ordered the State to release the amount of Rs.5 lakh each within two months, failing which the petitions had the liberty to apply for revival of the contempt proceedings.
Advocate Kaleeswaram Raj appeared for the petitioners, while Standing Counsel G. Prakash represented the State of Kerala.