A Wilful Difference

(Godson Thayyil, Advocate, Fort Cochin).

I am proud to be a member of a profession, legal and regal

The future and scope of legal profession, make me enthrall

Live for others and be their Saviour, income become limit-less

Professional satisfaction bring me pleasure, even though penny-less

Clients come with problems to solve

Shower their problems, on me, to resolve

Show their empty purse and happy they go

Solve theirs and forget mine, I have no other go

But my problem is to maintain an office with ease

Telephone charges and electricity bills, that department realize

Advocate clerk and office staff are paid promptly

But none there to pay me regularly and correctly

And my problem is to build-up and own a law-library

Price-hike of law books or any books cause me worry

Vehicle up-keep is indispensible for my hurried trips

Vehicular shuttling between courts cannot be a cheerful trip

And my problem is to adapt and adopt a foreign language

and custom with which to convince the judicial sage

Whims and fancies, moods and depression may influence discretion

But I cannot complain or cry over as there is ample provision.

And my problem is Denning and Cardozo fall into deaf ear

and so Salmond and Winfield, I never care and bother

Early disposal, any time and every time, bothers the bench

Voluminous evidence, if adduced, will enlarge their hunch

And my problem is I am wedded to a 'jealous Mistress'

And my earthy life and my ethernal wife are in distress

Morning and evening are time meant for clients engagement

In-between attend court and spare time for mind-engagement

And my problem is to swim in the ocean of law against its sway

Initial set-backs and dearth of income swing many away

And some prefer to sit in the bench than to stand at the bar

Divine work brings peace and status, while bar submerge in war

And my problem is my conscience and fear to tread over

Accident claims are for ambulance-chasers, who rush in an hour

Royal profession provides plenty of opportunities and scope

Perseverance and patience will pay in long run, I hope

Give to Ceasar and Give to God, Scripture says, So I believe

But income less my expenses, the net is far below

Tax-planning is not tabooed to medalist or any other payee

Footnote:

A reply to the "A Woeful Difference" in 1990 (1) KLT (Journal) 37.

S.54e :- Incometax Act, 1961 - Technical Lacunae and Injustice to Assessee

(By S.K. Thampi, B.A., LL.B., Advocate, Cochin-17)

Though many of the provisions of the Income tax Act are reliefs, the application of law for capital gains u/s. 54-E the beneficial application is not only a burden, but also a taxing problem itself. S.54-E was inserted by Finance Act, 1977 (No.2) and further amended by the Finance Acts of 1978,1979 and 1987, which says capital gains arising from the transfer of any capital asset are exempt from tax - only when the following conditions are satisfied - i.e., it should be a long term capital asset (held by the assessee for more than 36 months). This being the fact the C.B.D.T. is of view, the investment in specified asset has to be done within 6 months from the date of transfer. (Refer Circular No.359-10/5/83). It is here the legal melting pot cracks and injustice trickles down, and burns the tax payer - the willing - honest man. One can invest money anywhere only when one has it with him. But Income tax department are reluctant to take this fact, into consideration when the assessee receives any amount under land acquisition proceedings after exhaustive battle in Courts of Law.

This confusion is due to span of time, in period between the date of transfer and the actual receipt of amount. The benefit under S.54-E is given only if the amount is invested within six months from the date of transfer - which invariably cannot be done as the date of transfer and the actual date receipt are different. The Award amount usually reaches the beneficiary after lapse of 6 to or 7 years from the date of transfer. With this technical lacunae how can the tax payer be expected to invest the amount within 6 months from the date of transfer to have the benefit of tax exemption? Hence this denial of benefit u/s.54-E is certainly illegal and it violates the principle of natural justice. This technical lacunae and legal anomaly can certainly be solved if the principle high lighted in 1990 I.T.R. 379 is followed, which clearly say (though not retrospective in operation) that date of receipt shall be given its due importance than date of transfer.

Delay in Motor Accident Claims

(By Zachariah Koshy, Advocate, Kottayam)

The Honorable High Court is taking steps for the speedy disposal of motor accident claims and the Tribunals are being alerted periodically. In this context may I point out certain practical aspects.

On a representation made by the various Insurers, the Honorable High Court has directed to fix dates for each Insurance Company, so that their officers be present on those dates for settlement of the claims directly. On implementation of the said orders, it is painfully found that the presence of some Officers of some Companies stand in the way of settlement. This statement is made viz-a-viz our experience when the Advocate representing these companies used to co-operate for settlement of claims. Recently in a claim, 20% disability was certified by the Medical College, Kottayam. The Tribunal, after considering the age and monthly income, worked out a figure of Rs.62,000/- as compensation. In the mean time, when the limit of Rs.50,000/-was pointed out, the claimant agreed to settle his claim for Rs.50,000/-. But the Officer who was present was not prepared for any amount above Rs.25,000/-. Later on pressure the' Officer contacted his Regional Office, and enhanced his readiness to Rs.40,000/-. He further instructed the lawyer that in case the applicant does not agree for this, a petition be filed for referring the injured before a Medical Board, after challenging the disability certificate already issued by the Medical College. Accordingly the lawyer filed a petition for referring the applicant to a Medical Board, but the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application. Now the result is a written standing instruction is given to the lawyer by the Insurance Company to challenge all disability certificates and to refer all of them for obtaining certificates from the Medical Board. Officers like these when present appear much royal than the king and they defeat the very purpose for which they are being invited.

Another instance, a young widow aged 22 (with two children) was an applicant on the death of her husband, who was an abkari contractor earning Rs.2,000/- per month. After due deliberations the Tribunal arrived at a figure of Rs.1,60,000/-. Because of the limit, the Advocate for the applicants agreed for Rs.1,50,000/-. Immediately the Officer insisted that it should be inclusive of all interest. Though it was pointed out that interest is a right in case of delayed payment, the officer was not amenable and the poor widow with the Advocate had to return for being examined on a day after some days.

By the presence of these officers, we are forced to place the legitimate claim to the mercy of these officers who are really parties, instead of being decided judicially by the impartial Tribunal. In the circumstances, I feel that the practice of inviting Officers, particularly when their own Advocates are present before court, is doing more harm than good.

Another important aspect is escaping the attention of all concerned. There are lot of cases in which awards have been passed long, long ago. The insurance companies are not at all paying any attention for the deposit of the money awarded, particularly when these amounts are comparatively small - say below Rs.25,000/-probably because the company's loss by way of interest is insignificant compared to their gain otherwise in delaying all such petty amounts together making a substantial figure. For filing of applications, and for disposals of these applications, there are compelling forces, but there is no compelling force now for the proper deposit of the award amounts except the interest. In case the Insurance Companies are really bona fide, in their show of cooperation, let them deposit all the amounts now awarded, so that the victims may get at least the compensation at an early date. Action from the Honorable High Court on these aspects will be a blessing to the poor victims in motor accidents.

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification and Its Impact on Kerala Region

(By P.C. Chacko, Senior Advocate, Ernakulam)

This is a notification issued by the Government of India based on certain directives contained in the Parliamentary enactment called "The Environment Protection Act 1986". Actually the above Act is the necessary sequence of two Articles of the Constitution brought in as per the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. Those Articles are 48A and 51A(g). The former is stated as the duty of the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the natural resources of the Country. The later is stated as the duty cast on citizen of this Country to preserve and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life.

The Environment Protection Act 1986 empower the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. It is laid down in the said Act that for achieving these objectives the Central Government can take measures, such as restriction of areas in which an industry, operation or process shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. The Environment Protection Rules 1986 issued on the basis of the Environment Protection Act lays down the procedure, the Central Government is to follow in this regard. First publish the draft of the notification, giving brief description of the area, the industries, operations or processes which it wants to prohibit or restrict in the CRZ area and the reason for the same. It is after considering those objections received on the basis of the draft notification aforesaid that the Central Government is to finalise the notification defining the CRZ area and imposing prohibition and restrictions wherever it is necessary and expedient.

In the instant case before the finalisation and issuance of Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991 the Central Government issued the draft notification in December 1990 defining the CRZ area as comprised of Coastal stretches of seas, bays, creeks and estuaries and invited objection from the public on matters covered by the draft notification. In the draft the object of the notification was stated as the need for protecting the coastal areas and for ensuring that the use and activities in the Coastal areas are consistent with the principles and requirements of environmental conservations. In the objection process, on the plea of environmentalists to include water bodies comprised in backwaters and rivers also in the definition of CRZ area the same was included widening the definition of the CRZ area. It may be noted that for this inclusion no fresh draft was published nor views of State Governments or other local authorities obtained. The consequence was CRZ area in Kerala is magnified 10 times that what was intended by the draft notification.

CRZ area definition

As at present, CRZ area is defined as Coastal stretches of seas, bays, creeks, estuaries, backwaters and rivers affected by tidal action, upto a limit of 500 meters from the landward boundary and the land in between High Tide Line and Low Tide Line. As per the Note to this definition, for imposition of prohibitions and restrictions the 500 meters distance is relaxable in the case of creeks, backwaters and rivers. In respect of these waters bodies the restrictive distance is be decided by the respective State Governments on a case to case basis subject to the condition that it shall not be less than 100 meters from the land water boundary. As regards the extent to which tidal effect can go in backwaters and rivers, for the purpose of determining the CRZ area on both sides of these water bodies no guidelines is indicated in the notification. It is left to the respective State Governments and Union Territory administration. What happened in the case of the State of Kerala is that the Department of Science, Technology and Environment with the help of Centre for Earth Science Studies drew up the Coastal Management Plan fixing the CRZ area around these water bodies viz. backwaters and rivers influenced by tidal action based on salinity measurement in these water bodies. Any area where there is salinity upto 5 ppm on account of tidal effect was treated by them as coming within CRZ.

Restrictions and prohibitions in CRZ area

Para 2 of the notification mentions prohibited activities. Para 3 mentions regulation of permissible activities in CRZ area. The prohibition is in respect of

(1) Setting up of new industries and expansion of existing industries except those directly related to water front or directly needing foreshore facilities.

(2) Setting up of expansion of fish processing units including warehousing. There is a proviso added to this by the 1997 amendment, which states existing fish processing units for modernization purposes may utilise 25 % additional plinth area required for additional equipments and pollution control measures subject to existing floor area ratio and subject to Pollution Control Board approval.

(3) Land reclamation which disturb the natural course of sea water.

(4) Harvesting of drawal of ground water and construction of mechanisms therefor within 200 meters. of High Tide Line in the 200 mts. to 5 00 mtrs. zone.

(5) Construction activities in ecologically sensitive areas as specified in Annexure I of the notification. This is the restriction specified for category 1 to IV CRZ area.

(6) Any construction activity between Low Tide and High Tide Lines except facilities for carrying effluents and waste water discharge into the sea.

There are other prohibitions also for which there cannot be any objection and therefore not adverted to herein.

For certain specified activities mentioned in the Notification, like construction activities related to Defence requirements. Thermal power plants, environment clearance is required from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The notification states that clearance is automatic only for any activities if it requires water front and foreshore facilities. One of the activity for which permission from Environmental Ministry is required is activity with investment exceeding Rs.5 crores. All other activities are regulated by the concerned State level authorities in accordance with the provisions of para.6(2), Annexure 1 of the Notification. In other words, this means all developmental and construction activities in different categories of CRZ area shall be regulated in accordance with the norms stipulated for those categories.

Categorisation of CRZ area in the Notification

In the notification CRZ area in the Country is divided into 4 categories.

(1) Category 1 comprised of ecologically sensitive and important areas such as National Parks, Marine Parks, Sanctuaries, Mangroves, Corals and areas close to breeding and spawning grounds of fish. To this is included the entire area between the HTL and LTL stretching all along the coast. The prohibition and restriction so far as Category 1 area comprised within 500 mtrs. landward side of HTL, is that here no new construction is permitted. In the area between the HTL and LTL also no construction is permitted except in a limited way, such as facilities for carrying treated effluents and waste water discharges into the sea, facilities for carrying sea water for cooling purposes oil, gas and similar pipelines.

In the CZMP for Kerala, area comprised within category I, is identified as 100 mtrs. belt around mangroves, forests, in few places in Vypeen Island. 100 mtrs. belt around adjoining filtration ponds (shallow water bodies) in several places in Cochin. Outstanding natural beauty area like Kovlam, Varkala, Papanasam pilgrimage centre, Ezhimala etc. also will come under this category. The total area under this category is estimated as 68.006 sq. km. As per the CZMP report, besides the area aforesaid there is an extent of 30.387 sq.km. area comprised of land in between HTL and LTL coming under this category.

(ii) Category II - This comes mostly within Municipal and Corporation limits, areas which are already substantially built up and which have been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infra structural facilities such as water supply and sewage mains. Here building construction permitted only on the landward side of the existing road or roads proposed in the approved CZMP of the area or in the 1 and ward side of the existing authorised structures. No construction is permitted on the seaward side of the existing road or roads proposed in the approved CZMP. Reconstruction of the authorised building to be permitted subject to the existing FAR norms and without change in the existing use. In Kerala 19 coastal Municipalities and three Corporations comes under this category. Both the sea coast and the backwater and river side with tidal effect comes under this category. The total area comes under this category in Kerala is 68.478 sq. km.

(iii) Category III - Under this category comes areas that are relatively undisturbed and those which do not come either under category I or II. These are practically rural areas. All areas falling in Grama Panchayats are demarcated as CRZ III. Both the sea coast and the backwater and river side area with tidal influence, comes under this category. Here the area upto 200 metrs. from the HTL is to be earmarked as 'No construction Zone'. No construction shall be permitted within this zone except for repairs of existing authorised structures not exceeding FSI, existing plinth area and existing density. There is no restriction for this area to be used for agriculture/ horticulture gardens, pastures, parks, play fields, forestry and salt manufacture from sea water.

Vacant plots between 200 and 500 mtrs. of HTL can be used with the prior approval of MEF for construction of Hotel/Beach Resorts for temporary occupation of tourists, subject to condition as stipulated in the guidelines in Annexure II. As per Annexure II the total plot size shall not be less than 0.4 hectares and the total covered area on all the floors shall not exceed 33% of the plot size i.e. the FSI shall not exceed 0.33. The overall height of the construction upto the height ridge of the roof shall not exceed 9 meters and the construction shall not be more than 2 floors between 200 and 500 meters.

Construction/reconstruction of dwelling units be permitted so long it is within the ambit of traditional rights and customary uses such as existing fishing villages and goathans. But there is restriction that the total number of dwelling units shall not be more than twice the number of existing units and total covered area in all the floors shall not exceed 33% of the plot size and over the all height of the construction shall not be more than two floors. The total area comes under this category in Kerala is estimated as 341.825 kms.

(IV) Under category IV comes Andaman and Nicobar Islands in one group and Lakshadweep and small islands in another group. Though regulations pertaining to Andaman, Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands by its very nomenclature is not applicable to any part of Kerala, there is no reason to think that regulation stipulated for small islands is not applicable to islands in the water bodies like Vembanad, Ashtamudi and other backwaters. Possible explanation can be that one is island in the sea and the other is island in backwaters. Anyway when CZMP was drawn up by the State Government they decided to keep out category IV small islands for any water bodies in Kerala.

Dealing with small islands in category IV the notification specifies that the restrictive distance from the High Tide Line here is to depend on the size of the island. This has to be laid down for each island in consultation with experts and with the prior approval of the Ministry of Environment. Here also the newly constructed buildings shall not have more than 2 floors, ground and first floor and the total height of the structure shall not exceed 9 meters. Further restriction here is that the total covered area on all floors shall not be more than 50% of the plot size.

Anomalies in the Definition of CRZ Area

In the matter of giving a definition to CRZ area, the Central Government committed grave error. First thing is that coastal area as understood in common law alone was identified to be included in the definition of CRZ when the draft notification was published in December 1990. Draft notification was published specifying only coastal stretches of seas, bays, estuaries and creeks as corning within it. The object was also stated to be for protecting the coastal areas from environment hazards. When final notification was issued this definition was widened by including water bodies comprised in rivers and backwaters which are affected by tidal action on the objection/suggestion by the Environmentalists without fresh draft notification issued and objection called for. Secondly no guideline is given in the notification as to how the CRZ area is to be drawn up by the concerned Coastal States based on tidal effect in backwaters and rivers. In other words, what the notification means by tidal effect and to what distance the tidal effect can go in backwaters and rivers, no criterion is indicated in the notification of the Central Government. What the notification states is that this can be determined by the State Government on a case to case basis while preparing the CZMP subject to the condition that this distance shall not be less than 100 mtrs. or the width of the river, backwater of creek, whichever is less.

Instead of leaving the matter to be determined by the State Government the Central Government should have indicated the limit unto which tidal effect can go. They could have followed the "Sere Lantern Law" of tidal effect limiting it to a distance of 2 kms from the sea river entrance point. For clarity the said provision is extracted below.

"That area lying within a limit of three hundred meters landward of the Mean High Water Line and a limit of two kilometers seawards of the Mean Low Water Line and in the case of rivers, streams, lagoons, or any other body of water connected to the sea either permanently or periodically, the landward boundary shall extend to a limit of two kilometers measured perpendicular to the straight base line drawn between the natural entrance points thereof and shall include waters of such rivers, streams and lagoons or any other body of water so connected to the sea".

What happened in the matter is that the State Government in exercise of the power vested in it under para.3(1) of the notification adapted the yard stick of 100 mtrs. from the land water boundary as the area comprised in CRZ so far as banks of backwaters and rivers are concerned. The impact of tidal effect to determine the CRZ area they adopted the criterion of salinity of water in rivers and backwaters. In this process they also adapted the principle of excluding areas inside the bunds which arrests the inflow of tidal water from CRZ area. It is on this principle Kuttanad is excluded from CRZ on the ground of Thaneermukkam and Thottappilly Spillway arresting the tidal flow to this region. As reason for adapting shorter distance of 100 metrs. from land water boundary instead of 500 mtrs. regulation zone for all water bodies they say if 500 mtrs regulation zone is adopted vast streches of land in Kerala will have to be brought under the Regulation Zone. This will greatly retard developmental activities in the State when population density per square kilometer in rural area of coastal region is above 2000 and above 4000 in urban area. At the same time average density of population in Kerala is below 700 per sq. km. Effective area available for developmental activities will not be in proportion to the population if Notification CRZ area is adopted. Hence lesser regulation zone proposed. The State Government was not correct in the adoption of salinity of 5 ppm as a criteria to ascertain the CRZ area. In the first place salinity is not a criteria laid down by CRZ notification. What is laid down in the notification is tidal influx and not salinity which has little salinity. Secondly 5 ppm is a very low density in routine life. PPM means part per million. Usually salinity is measured in ppt which means parts per thousand. Thirdly salinity in river-mouth is an oscillating phenomenon. Salinity varies shapely with depth. Salinity also varies with season.

To what extent and in what manner the notification affects Kerala

Kerala is a land of rivers and backwaters. 44 rivers and 4 backwaters cut across Kerala with their innumerable tributaries and branches. Backwater includes lakes and ocean inlet which stretch irregularly along the coast. When the estimated coastal line of the Country is 6000 kms. the coastal line in Kerala itself is around 560 kms. Banks of rivers and backwaters affected by tidal action is besides the above extent. On a recent estimate 15.43 % of the total area of Kerala is found to be affected by the CRZ notification. Limited land availability and high population is the distinct phenomenon of Kerala. Though Kerala represents only 1.18% of the total area of India. 3.4% of the total population of this Country is in Kerala. It is the density of population especially in the coastal areas and the limited land availability for development that is facing as problem hindering the implementation of CRZ notification.

In the Environment Rules, specific mention is made that before imposing restrictions and prohibitions the Central Government should take into consideration various factors, like topographic and climatic features of the area, biological diversity of the area which in the opinion of the Central Government needs to be preserved, net adverse environmental impact likely to be caused by industries, processes or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted etc. Supreme Court also has ruled that environmental restrictions should not hamper developmental activities. Both must go together. It is evident that the above aspects highlighted in the Rules have not been given due consideration when the notification was issued. It is further evident than the State Government also did not give much attention to these aspects when they drew up the CZMP. As cause to this it may be argued that in the matter of preparing CZMP due publicity could not be given, objections were not called for, local authorities were not consulted, etc. because of the speed with which it was done based on the Supreme Court direction to prepare and finalise the CZMP within a particular time indicated in the judgment rendered at the instance of the Environmentalists. The net result of all this is that without looking into the adverse impact, uncalled for areas were unnecessarily brought into the definition of CRZ and restrictions and prohibitions were imposed creating untold sufferings to many.

Inclusion of the area around backwaters and rivers affected by tidal action was' without following the procedure fixed therefor as per the Rules. The purport of the notification imposing restrictions and prohibitions is for settlement of environment and also for avoiding environmental pollution. Stating these as grounds there was no report or data before the Central Government for inclusion of backwaters and rivers affected by tidal action within CRZ. Yet those areas were included in the CRZ. By reason of inclusion of these areas especially by the adoption of the citerion of salinity to determine the extent and depth of tidal effect, more areas were unnecessarily brought within CRZ. Consequences was that not only river sides and areas around backwaters were brought within the fold of CRZ but also its tributaries i.e. areas around canals and thodes which were affected by tidal action. Consequence being prohibition and restrictions laid down in the CRZ notification were made applicable to these areas also. To add to this is the circumstance that the State Government while preparing CZMP did hot for want of details, excluded the entire areas behind all the bunds which arrest the tidal influx, but mentioned only the important ones like Thanneermukkam barrage and Thottappilly Spillway. Non-mentioning of all bunds which arrests the flow of tidal effect gave occasion for the plea that non excluded areas in CZMP will come within CRZ though actually not so. Another aspect of the matter which requires consideration is as regards actual CRZ area coming under category II. Here prohibition and restrictions is inapplicable on the landward side of the existing or proposed roads in the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan or on the landward side of the existing structures. Which is that excluded again each Municipality, Corporation or Panchayat is discernible only on perusal of PWD records or local authorities records which admittedly have not - been looked into at all while CZMP was prepared by the State Government. This is causing difficulty to many. This has to be rectified by a survey of such existing records relating to existing roads, proposed roads and existing structures.

Categorisation of sea facing CRZ area into category 1, 2 and 3 and imposition of distinct condition to each such category is understandable but applicability of such categorization and distinct conditions to other water bodies i.e. backwater and river facing areas is understandable. This is so because in the CZMP drawn up by the State Government restrictive distance for imposition of prohibition and restriction is 100 meters uniformly from the land water boundary, whether area comes under category 1,2 or 3. This in other words means by reasons of stipulation of 100 meters uniformly. In respect of such water bodies categorisation has no meaning 100 meters from land water boundary is always restriction zone. Whereas in the case of sea facing CRZ area, where the no-development zone depends on category to which it belongs and which extent goes upto 500 meters from land water boundary. It is necessary that the State Government should have a second look into these aspects.

In this process the most pitiable is the position of people who are residing and owning properties in the islands, especially in Vembanad backwaters. Here except Vypeen Island all the other Islands are having width only below 500 mtrs. The Vypeen Island western side is Arabian Sea and all the other sides are surrounded by Vembanad backwaters. This means 500 mtrs. area from the High Tide Line of the western side is to remain as 'Non Development Zone' all the other three sides being backwater area, at a width of 100 metrs. from HTL is area likewise to remain as 'Non Development Zone' The net result is that a major portion of the Island is 'No Development Zone'. In the case of other Islands like Thanthonni, Kadamakkudi, Perumbalam etc., the width of which is less than 100 mtrs. on the four sides 100 mtrs. width is to be kept as 'No Development Zone'. This means on no part of the Island any development is possible at all. One striking feature so far as these islands are concerned is that there is no environmental problem here. Here the land, water and air is absolutely non-polluted by any industry or the like. Therefore in the guise of abating pollution or betterment of environment, there is no necessity to retard developmental activities in these areas.

Take also the case of main land sea facing coastal area starting from Neeleswaram on the north upto Kanyakumari in the South. Coastal area from Kochi to Kanyakumari is thickly populated. Barring a few places where there is public road separating the beach from the private land, most areas are places where there is no public road and consequently there is no accessibility to the beach at all. Access to the beach is obstructed by thickly populated houses. It is evident from the notification that one of the reasons for the 500 metrs. landward area from HTL to be kept as CRZ zone is that the public should have free access to the beach and the coastal line. That is the reason why in the notification stipulation is made that in between two resorts hotels permitted to be put up in CRZ category III (area in between 200 mtrs. and 500 mtrs.) there should be vacant space of 20 mtrs. at least and further the provision permitting fencing, stipulates the condition that it should in no way hamper public access to the beach. In view of the circumstance that in most parts of Kerala the area upto the coast is privately owned property, having no public road separating it with the coast, accessibility to the beach is impossible unless a public road at the instance of Government is constructed through the privately owned property making it possible for the public to have access to the beach.

The Role of the Judges in Contemporary Society

(M. Mathew, Advocate, Ernakulam)

Courts like the other branches of Government, belong to the people, they serve the individual and the public interest through legal processes slowly and carefully evolved over centuries. An independent judiciary need not be a mysterious area of government or appear to be an occult priesthood. Indeed of all branches of the Government, it can be seen as the most open; all its hearings are public, and all its decisions are promptly made public. No one may address arguments to the Court except in public sessions of the Court and by printed briefs available to public examination. Justices who disagree with the majority have their dissenting views printed with the Court opinion.

It has been said that, except for its decision conferences, the Courts literally operates "in a goldfish bowl" Like all institutions it consists of flesh-and-blood morals with individual personalities, the normal human traits, their lives and activities are available to any person diligent enough to inquire.

Most people know, or think they know, what the Executive and the legislature are expected to do under our constitution. Far fewer have a clear idea of what goes on in the Courts generally. Even though hundreds of thousands of visitors have gone through the Court buildings and perhaps have observed oral arguments briefly, for most it has remained a remote austere "marble temple" housing seldom seen jurists who periodically issue pronouncements on the law of the land. This is not because the justices prefer remoteness, but chiefly because they are engrossed in the confining task of reviewing cases and writing opinions. It is surely not because they do not want people to understand the judicial function in our system; unfortunately there are relatively few people qualified to interpret and explain the Court's role in terms widely understood and even fewer who undertake to address public on the subject. But happily now this is changing.