The Supreme Court today criticized the Maharashtra government over its handling of Migrant Labourers. The court said that it has received complains about inadequate food and shelter for migrant labourers. However, the state has claimed the opposite. The court also said that no proper arrangements for migrant labourers were made to send them to homes.
According to the data shown by the Government of Maharashtra around 5 lakh people were sent free of cost by buses. The data showed that 37,000 migrants were still waiting to go back home.
“There are huge lapses on the part of the State authorities in implementing state policies and decisions and most of the claims are only on paper causing great miseries and hardship to the migrant workers,” said Justices Ashok Bhushan, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MR Shah, who also ordered the states to send all migrants home within 15 days.
The state said that the Centre failed to provide proper trains. On the other hand, head of Union minister Piyush Goyal stated that the state failed to provide passengers and their destinations. The registration process was not at all user friendly thus creating an obstacle.
Court: Maharashtra Should Make A More Careful And Concentrated Effort
Today, the court said that Maharashtra should make a more careful and concentrated effort in identifying stranded migrant workers. It must publicise the places where migrant workers can identify and register themselves for the trip home.
The state officials must also ensure that there is no complaint that the migrant workers have not received food and shelter or help for their journey.
“The Government should publicise and announce the places — that is police stations or any other suitable place for identifying and registering the workers, who have not yet been provided any train or bus journey,” the three-judge bench said.
The court, which had taken up the migrants issue suo motu, said although in the affidavit, “the state claims it is providing food and shelter to migrant workers and list of entire workers is prepared, such claim has been refuted in different affidavits and materials brought on the record by intervenors and various individuals”.