Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Sue GCC for deaths, injuries caused due to potholes on roads

Sue civic body for deaths, injuries caused due to potholes on roads

The Greater Chennai Corporation, answerable to the public of the metropolis, is hesitating to answer even questions raised under the RTI Act. A recent audit by a city-based NGO flagged delays and discrepancies in many of the works undertaken by the civic body. The same is the case when laying new roads; the contractors either 'create' new potholes or damage the rest of the road while working in their assigned stretch. Filling existing potholes and creating new ones doesn't serve any purpose. Who is answerable? The contractor or the GCC? Can they compensate for the loss of lives on these pothole-ridden roads? Can't the court take suo moto action in such cases and penalise those responsible?

— Babu, Madhavaram Milk Colony

Instead of writing letters to newspapers, why don't you sue the civic body for any accident caused due to potholes on the road or the ones deliberately created by their road-laying contractors? In such an event, the courts are likely to order compensation to the victim and penalise the guilty.

Apex court may close Pandora's Box it opened with its Ayodhya decision

The courts, these days, are giving much importance to suits challenging the religious character of some places of worship and ordering probes by the Archaeological Survey of India to confirm their historical roots. Given how the faultlines of the nation were left wide open as the Ram Janmabhoomi movement culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the digging of mosque sites appears to be a recipe for disaster for a diverse country with a long and complex history. There are claims, at least in Tamil Nadu, that many Buddhist temples were demolished in the past, and some present-day temples stand upon what was built for Buddha. Is it the court’s job to order digging in centuries-old worship places and decide whether it was built upon a pre-existing worship place?

— Vincent Robert, Mandaiveli, Chennai

To avoid problems arising out of the historical background of places of worship an Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1991. The only place exempted from the Act was the Ayodhya dispute claiming control over Ram Janmabhoomi and building a temple over the place where the masjid existed. After seeing its success, several suits are filed in places such as Varanasi, Mathura and now Sambal.

Petitions challenging the 1991 Act that prohibits conversion of any place of worship have been pending in the Supreme Court for the last four years. Only two days back the new CJI has stayed probing the origin of Sambal mosque in Uttar Pradesh. Hope he will earnestly take up the cases relating to the 1991 Act and put an end to such litigations once and for all.