‘If there is a danger of earthquake, should we send everyone to the moon?’ Supreme Court’s question during hearing, petition rejected

Supreme Court on earthquake petition: A strange incident happened in the Supreme Court on Friday when a petition filed regarding earthquake safety was being heard. After hearing the arguments of the petitioner, the judges said something that shocked everyone. The court sarcastically asked that if there is so much danger of earthquake on earth, should we send everyone to the moon? The court made it clear that the court cannot decide everything, some work should be left to the government also.

This matter came before the bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The petitioner said that earlier only Delhi was considered a danger zone, but now according to the new assessment, 75 percent of the country’s population is in the high-risk zone of earthquake. Therefore, the court should intervene and give instructions to the government. However, the Supreme Court rejected this demand outright and called it purely a policy matter of the government.

first bring the volcano

When the petitioner cited the example of the recent earthquake in Japan and asked for similar arrangements to be made in India, Justice Nath made another interesting comment. He said that before comparing with Japan, we will also have to bring volcanoes to India. The court made it clear that geographical circumstances are different. The petitioner had cited several newspaper reports to prove his point, which the judges flatly refused to accept as evidence and said that newspaper reports cannot be a legal basis.

Also read: Swami Ramdev got angry after hearing ‘Vyapari Baba’, said – I am not a leader, still…10 crore votes in my hands!

The court will not do the work of the government

Justice Sandeep Mehta made it clear during the hearing that making rules for disaster management and safety is the job of the government, not the court. The court said that we cannot direct the government to make a policy because it does not come under the jurisdiction of the judiciary. The court agreed that earthquake protection is necessary, but the government will have to take responsibility and preparation for it. The court reprimanded the petitioner and said that your demand is very big, which is not in the hands of the court to fulfill. With this the petition was rejected.