[ad_1]
Dismissing his petition seeking grant of compensation from the government on the ground of poor air quality in Delhi, the High Court Monday told a law student that the right to file a case before the court is not merely a tool for resume.
“Sir remember, the court is a serious place. Filing and the right to you to file your petition in this court, is not merely a tool for your resume and your CV. Next time you have a serious issue to raise, you are most welcome to do so but otherwise …,” Justice Yashwant Varma told the petitioner.
The petitioner, an LLM student from Delhi University, had prayed for a direction to the government for grant of Rs 15 lakh as compensation and a medical insurance of Rs 25 lakh. The petition argued pollution is the root of many diseases and severely affects human health.
The court at the outset asked the petitioner Shivam Pandey to show evidence in support of his contention that he has suffered on account of pollution. Pandey submitted there are reports that due to pollution, life expectancy of a person decreases. However, the court asked the counsel to show a report where it’s mentioned that he has suffered personally.
“Pollution is a slow poison,” argued Pandey. The court said, “I don’t want a general discussion on the subject of pollution and its side effects. I am asking you, show us from the record the personal injuries suffered by you.”
When Pandey submitted that he was facing “breathing issues”, the court asked the petitioner to show a medical report of a doctor who may have treated him for any ailments related to Delhi’s pollution.
Pandey submitted that pollution is acting as a slow poison and it will impact his life. Addressing Pandey, Justice Varma said he will be happy to take up with him “general discussion” elsewhere but in court ‘personal injury’ needs to be shown.
“Personal injury will only be available at the time of my old age when I’ll be I guess 70 or 75 because at that time, five to six years of my life would have been deducted due to pollution,” responded Pandey.
Dismissing the petition, the court said the petitioner failed to place on record any material evidence which may even remotely establish any personal injury suffered by him on account of causes which are referred to in the writ petition.
[ad_2]
Source link