JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the above-titled petitions, the same are taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. However, in order to maintain the clarity, the facts of WPPIL No.05 of 2016 have been taken into consideration. 2. A question of great public importance has been raised in the present PILs filed pro bono publico, for enhancement of compensation paid to the victims of the gruesome tragedy which occurred in the month of June, 2013 in Kedar Valley. According to the petitioner, the amount of compensation for rehabilitation of aggrieved persons, is inadequate. 3. According to the pleadings, the State Government has framed rehabilitation policies, from time to time, for payment of compensation in the event of natural calamity. These policies have been placed on record. 4. According to the pleadings, the Government of India has sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,187.87 crores out of the National Disaster Response Fund in addition to the amount available in the State Disaster Response Fund. The sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs each has been disbursed to the next of kin of 972 persons of Uttarakhand. Out of the missing persons of other States, compensation worth Rs.77.28 crores has been disbursed by the respondent-State Governments against 2,208 missing persons. For 149 injured persons, ex-gratia relief of Rs.29.03 lakh has been disbursed to 148 persons. Owners of 16,016 houses, which were damaged or destroyed by disaster, have been disbursed an ex-gratia relief amount of Rs.72.89 crores. Against the total loss of 14,364 animals and poultries, all owners have been disbursed an ex-gratia relief amounting to Rs.8.55 crores. Ex-gratia relief of Rs.10.58 crores has been disbursed to 22,086 disaster affected families, who lost their clothes, utensils and other household goods. A sum of Rs.31.88 crores has been disbursed to all the land owners for the loss of crops/damage to agricultural land. A sum of Rs.174.63 crores has been disbursed to the disaster affected families. 5. Special provision for reimbursement of educational fees for the academic session 2012-13 has been made out of the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund for children who have lost either of their parents as well as the Policy for providing houses to the homeless families. 6. A sum of Rs.174.63 crores has been disbursed to the disaster affected families. 5. Special provision for reimbursement of educational fees for the academic session 2012-13 has been made out of the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund for children who have lost either of their parents as well as the Policy for providing houses to the homeless families. 6. According to the Rehabilitation Scheme framed by the State Government, Rs.5.00 lakhs is paid to the next of kin of 972 persons, who have died in disaster by way of interim relief, a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs to the persons, who have suffered disability of more than 80%, a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs to the disabled persons ranging between 40% to 80% and a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the persons, who have received life threatening injuries. This Scheme was notified on 27.06.2013, which was modified from time to time. 7. A copy of policy document for reconstruction of housing and public buildings has also been placed on record. According to this policy, all pre-fabricated houses will be constructed by Government. All owner-driven constructed houses will be constructed by the beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are to be paid Rs.5.00 lakhs in four installments. 8. The land required for the purpose of construction of new houses and related infrastructure was to be provided by the State Government in lieu of the private land belonging to these persons. The new land was to be identified by the District Magistrate which, in turn, was to be handed over by the Government to the aggrieved/ affected families. 9. The Court has gone through all the schemes placed on record and is of the considered view that the amount of compensation, paid for the rehabilitation of the victims/affected families, due to the tragedy which took place in the year 2013 at Kedar Valley, is inadequate. 10. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that new houses cannot be constructed with Rs.5.00 lakh. A sum of Rs.5.00 lakh, to be paid to the next kith and kin of persons who have died in the Valley, payment of Rs.2.00 lakh to the persons who suffered 80% disability and a sum of Rs.1.50 lakh to the persons who suffered 40-80% disability, is on the meager side. 11. A sum of Rs.5.00 lakh, to be paid to the next kith and kin of persons who have died in the Valley, payment of Rs.2.00 lakh to the persons who suffered 80% disability and a sum of Rs.1.50 lakh to the persons who suffered 40-80% disability, is on the meager side. 11. According to the reply filed by the State, the Committee, constituted for rehabilitation, has submitted the report qua 472 families of 23 villages in 3 Tehsils of District Rudraprayag. It is also stated in the reply that Rs.2.00 lakhs compensation has also been paid to each family for completely damaged houses and Rs.1.00 lakhs for seriously damaged houses and Rs.15,000/- for partially damaged houses. 12. It is settled law that the rehabilitation policy falls with the realm of public policy. The scope of judicial view is limited. However, the Court, taking into consideration the massive loss caused to life and property in the area concerned, is of considered view that the amount of compensation should, at least, be increased by fifty percent to mitigate the hardships faced by the victims/ affected/aggrieved persons. 13. The State was never prepared for such a massive tragedy. The State machinery was paralyzed. It never rose to the occasion. The rescue operations were delayed, which further compounded the miseries of the helpless people trapped in the area. The State should have managed the disaster effectively and properly by involving all the agencies like Army, Air Force, National Disaster Relief Force, Paramilitary Forces and local police at the earliest. 14. The State Government has the constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. However, the State Government was negligent in not taking sufficient preventive measures to prevent the tragedy. Rather, the State Government was negligent even after the tragedy has occurred by not salvaging the situation and taking all the measures to protect the life and property. There was apathy, insensitivity and callousness in the attitude of the State even after the tragedy. 15. The victims of such a massive tragedy have a right to get just and fair compensation. These persons constitute a special class and have a right of rehabilitation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The compensation, paid to this special class, must be adequate/ sufficient to enable them to settle themselves, afresh. 16. 15. The victims of such a massive tragedy have a right to get just and fair compensation. These persons constitute a special class and have a right of rehabilitation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The compensation, paid to this special class, must be adequate/ sufficient to enable them to settle themselves, afresh. 16. In the Kedarnath tragedy, the children have lost their parents and they have become Orphans. It is the duty of the State Government to provide all necessary facilities to the Orphans till they attain the age of majority. 17. Ours is a welfare State. The welfare State and socialism are the basic features of the Constitution. The welfare State should always adopt humanitarian approach to help the persons in distress on each and every count i.e. death case, injury case, destruction of houses, loss to crops, cattle etc. The State has also not enforced the provisions of Disaster Management Act, 2005 in letter and spirit. Even 20 rescues have also died during the rescue operations. 18. Their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court in the case of ‘Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India & others’ (2016) 7 SCC 498 , have held that public interest litigation is necessary in certain circumstances, particularly in a welfare State such as ours. The directive principles enjoin the State to take all protective measures to which a social welfare State is committed. How else can a welfare State function effectively if it cannot even hear let alone listen to what the underprivileged and needy people have to say? Although, Article 47 is not enforceable being a directive principle, there is considerable moral force and authority in this provision to persuade the State Governments and the Government of India to attempt at ensuring that the people, particularly those in drought-affected areas, are provided adequate foodgrains and a cooking medium for the preparation of their meals. Their Lordships, in paragraph nos.20, 21 and 22, have held as under: - “20. Public interest litigation is necessary in certain circumstances particularly in a welfare State such as ours. In Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 130 it was held that the Directive Principles enjoin the State to take all protective measures to which a social welfare State is committed. Public interest litigation is necessary in certain circumstances particularly in a welfare State such as ours. In Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India (2015) 2 SCC 130 it was held that the Directive Principles enjoin the State to take all protective measures to which a social welfare State is committed. It is said in paragraph 8 of the Report: There is no manner of doubt that a welfare State is the protector of life and liberty of its citizens not only within the country but also outside the country in certain situations. The concept of parens patriae recognises the State as protector of its citizens as parent particularly when citizens are not in a position to protect themselves. The Preamble to the Constitution, read with directive principles, under Articles 38, 39 and 39-A enjoins the State to take all protective measures to which a social welfare State is committed. Interestingly, this doctrine has been recognised in India even before the Constitution came into force. 21. There are occasions when people in disadvantaged situations are unable to have access to courts and therefore access to justice and need someone to speak up for them. How else can a welfare State function effectively if it cannot even hear let alone listen to what the underprivileged and needy people have to say? In Sheela Barse v. Union of India : (1988) 4 SCC 226 this Court held that public interest litigation is intended to prevent the violation of rights of those segments of society that cannot assert their rights owing to poverty, ignorance or other disadvantages. It was said in paragraph 11 of the Report: 11………The compulsion for the judicial innovation of the technique of a public interest action is the constitutional promise of a social and economic transformation to usher in an egalitarian social order and a welfare State. Effective solutions to the problems peculiar to this transformation are not available in the traditional judicial system. The proceedings in a public interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory, of sizeable segments of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert-and quite often not even aware of -- those rights. 22. The proceedings in a public interest litigation are, therefore, intended to vindicate and effectuate the public interest by prevention of violation of the rights, constitutional or statutory, of sizeable segments of the society, which owing to poverty, ignorance, social and economic disadvantages cannot themselves assert-and quite often not even aware of -- those rights. 22. Public interest litigation presents the Court with an issue based problem concerning society and solutions need to be found to that problem within the legal framework. Sometimes, the cause of the problem is bureaucratic inactivity and apathy; sometimes executive excesses that cause the problem and sometimes the problem is caused by the ostrich-like reaction of the executive. These situations represent the broad contours of public interest issues brought to the notice of the Court, and these are the kind of issues for which we need to search for solutions. The successful pursuit of appropriate solutions and consequent conclusions and directions are often pejoratively and unfortunately described as judicial activism. In this context, it is worth quoting Justice Michael Kirby a former judge of the High Court of Australia who says in his Hamlyn Lecture "Judicial Activism - Authority, Principle and Policy in the Judicial Method"1 with reference to our country as follows: The acute needs of the developing countries of the Commonwealth have sometimes produced an approach to constitutional interpretation that is unashamedly described as "activist", including by judges themselves. Thus in India, at least in most legal circles, the phrase "judicial activism" is not viewed as one of condemnation. So urgent and numerous are the needs of that society that anything else would be regarded by many-- including many judges and lawyers--as an abdication of the final court's essential constitutional role. One instance may be cited from Indian experience: the expansion of the traditional notion of standing to sue in public interest litigation. The Indian Supreme Court has upheld the right of prisoners, the poor and other vulnerable groups to enlist its constitutional jurisdiction by simply sending a letter to the Court. This might not seem appropriate in a developed country. Yet it appears perfectly adapted to the nation to which the Indian Constitution speaks. Lord Chief Justice Woolf recently confessed to having been astounded at first by the proactive approach of the Indian Supreme Court in this and other respects. However, he went on: ... This might not seem appropriate in a developed country. Yet it appears perfectly adapted to the nation to which the Indian Constitution speaks. Lord Chief Justice Woolf recently confessed to having been astounded at first by the proactive approach of the Indian Supreme Court in this and other respects. However, he went on: ... I soon realised that if that Court was to perform its essential role in Indian society, it had no option but to adopt the course it did and I congratulate it for the courage it has shown. Much later, Justice Kirby goes on to say: “It is beyond contest that some of the accretions of power to the judiciary over the last century have come about as a result of failures and inadequacies in lawmaking by the other branches and departments of government. Constitutional power hates a vacuum. Where it exists, in the form of silence, confusion or uncertainty about the law, it is natural that those affected, despairing of solutions from the other law-making organs of government, will sometimes approach the judicial branch for what is in effect a new rule. They will seek a new law that responds quickly to their particular problem. When this happens judges, if they have jurisdiction in the case, are not normally at liberty to just send the parties away. How do they decide whether the fulfilment of their judicial role permits, or requires, the giving of an answer or obliges them to decline and force the parties to return to the politicians or bureaucrats? To what extent must judges defer to Parliament, when they know full well, from many like cases, that nothing will be done because the problem is too particular, divisive, technical or boring to merit political attention and parliamentary time? What, in other words, is the judicial role in the particular case?” To be sure, judicial activism is not an uncomplimentary or uncharitable epithet to describe the end result of public interest litigation. Those who benefit from judicial activism shower praise and those who are at the receiving end criticize it. C'est la vie!” 19. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed with the cost of Rs.50,000/- each. Those who benefit from judicial activism shower praise and those who are at the receiving end criticize it. C'est la vie!” 19. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed with the cost of Rs.50,000/- each. Respondent-State Government is directed to pay additional fifty percent compensation to the victims/affected/aggrieved persons of Kedarnath Valley Tragedy of 2013 under all the categories provided for, in the rehabilitation schemes as well as the Policy for Reconstruction of Housing and Public Buildings, framed for these people, within a period of three months from today. 20. The additional amount is ordered to be deposited in the bank accounts of the victims/affected/aggrieved families directly. 21. The State Government is further directed to trace and find out the children who were rendered Orphans due to Kedarnath Tragedy and to take all necessary steps for their rehabilitation including their boarding and lodging, free education up to post-graduation. The State Government is also directed to provide stipend of Rs.7,500/- per month to the Orphans, till they attain the age of majority, to be deposited in their bank accounts through District Welfare Officers of the concerned district. The Chief Secretary of the State shall be personally responsible to execute the order in letter and spirit.