ADVERTISEMENT

The Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has strongly criticized the Kerala government for excluding a survivor of the Mundakkai–Chooralmala landslide from a rehabilitation township project.

The Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has strongly criticized the Kerala government for excluding a survivor of the Mundakkai–Chooralmala landslide from a rehabilitation township project.

The Kerala State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has strongly criticized the Kerala government for excluding a survivor of the Mundakkai–Chooralmala landslide from a rehabilitation township project.

Kalpetta: The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has come down heavily on the Kerala government for excluding a survivor of the devastating Mundakkai–Chooralmala landslide from the township project being developed for victims on a 64-acre plot at Elstone Plantation near here.

The Commission was considering a complaint filed by K T Saheer, a native of Mundakkai, who lost 11 members of his family in the landslide, including his 11-year-old son Rinshad. Since the disaster, Saheer has been living in a rented house, with the State government paying the rent every month.

ADVERTISEMENT

“When the State government itself is paying rent for a landslide survivor, recognising him as a victim of the calamity, it is confusing and unjustifiable that he has been excluded from the township project,” SHRC judicial member K Baijunath said in a press statement issued here on Friday.

Terming the government’s approach discriminatory, the Rights panel said the State must ensure equality and justice while considering all survivors of the devastating landslide.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Commission directed the District Collector, who is also the chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA), to submit a detailed report within 15 days of receiving notice from the SHRC, explaining the reasons for excluding the complainant from the list of beneficiaries.

The panel rejected the District Collector’s initial report, which stated that the complainant was living in rented accommodation outside the ‘no-go zone’ and was therefore ineligible for rehabilitation. The report had also claimed that there was no State government directive to rehabilitate such persons. The SHRC dismissed the explanation, terming it “discriminatory”.

ADVERTISEMENT