Il governo del Tamil Nadu si rivolge alla Corte Suprema contro l'Alta Corte che ha negato il lavoro ai parenti delle vittime del massacro di Karur

The Tamil Nadu government has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging a recent ruling by the Madras High Court that nullified the state's decision to offer government jobs to family members of victims of the Karur stampede. The move comes after the Madurai Bench of the High Court struck down the appointments made on compassionate grounds, citing constitutional principles related to equality and procedural fairness. The appeal was submitted following the High Court's July 27 decision, which deemed the state's actions unconstitutional. The incident dates back to September of last year when a tragic stampede occurred during a political rally organized by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The event was addressed by current Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Joseph Vijay, who also serves as the party president. The stampede resulted in multiple casualties, prompting the state government to take swift action to provide relief to affected families. In response to the tragedy, the Tamil Nadu administration initiated a program offering government employment to the relatives of the deceased. These positions were intended as a form of compassionate relief, aimed at supporting the families emotionally and financially. However, this initiative faced legal scrutiny soon after implementation. On July 27, the Madras High Court issued a ruling that invalidated the appointments, emphasizing that such decisions must adhere strictly to established guidelines governing compassionate appointments. The court highlighted concerns regarding potential misuse of such provisions, warning that allowing exceptions could lead to widespread abuse of the system. It stressed that adherence to existing protocols was essential to maintain fairness and prevent arbitrary decisions. The High Court further underscored the importance of maintaining order in the appointment process by pointing out the existence of extensive waiting lists across all government departments for compassionate appointments. According to the court, appointments should follow strict seniority rules rather than being influenced by urgent humanitarian considerations alone. This approach aligns with constitutional protections ensuring equal treatment and due process under Articles 14 and 21. The Tamil Nadu government defended its actions, arguing that the appointments were made using its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the High Court maintained that even executive discretion must operate within constitutional boundaries. The court emphasized that while the state has the authority to act compassionately, it must do so without violating established legal frameworks. The Supreme Court will now review the case, considering both the state's arguments and the High Court's interpretation of constitutional mandates. The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent affecting future compassionate appointments nationwide. As the situation unfolds, attention remains focused on how the judiciary balances humanitarian gestures with legal integrity.