Pages of Endosulfan study report missing

KASARGOD: Though the DYFI had stated in its affidavit filed in the Supreme Court that the annexure filed in the writ  petition were true copies of the original

documents in the case demanding country-wide ban on endosulfan, it was

alleged that several pages in the original epidemiological study of the Kozhikode

Medical College Hospital (KMCH) were missing in the petition.

On page 22 of the writ petition filed by the DYFI in the Supreme Court, its state secretary T V Rajesh had stated that the ‘annexure filed herewith are true of its respective originals’. But only 15 pages of the 53 page original study conducted by the department of the Community Medicine of the Medical College were presented in the court.

Further, not only that many tables in the original were missing in the annexure, but many tables which are not in the original study were inserted in the petition. (The Express possesses a copy of the 53 page epidemiological study conducted by the KMCH).

For instance, tables from first to six were missing in the petition as well as tables from 10 to 12. The entire column on the health status on page 51 of the original study was missing in the annexure.These missing tables say that there is not much difference in the status of diseases in both the endosulfan-sprayed and non-sprayed areas.

DYFI state secretary T V Rajesh, the petitioner, said that his advocates in Delhi were dealing with the case and that he did not know about the oath he had made in the writ petition to the Supreme Court. However, his advocate said some of the tables and information on the spraying of endosulfan in Kasargod  were taken from the website of the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

When contacted, the DYFI’s Supreme Court advocate Deepak Prakash said he would produce the original document of the study conducted by the KMCH in the SC.

However, Dr Samir Dave, advocate of the Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association (PMFA) said that though he had requested the advocates of the opposite party, he did not get the original study report of the KMCH report from them.But Deepak Prakash said he was willing to show his opposite advocate a copy of the original report of the KMCH, but he was not legally bound to given them a copy.

But advocates of the PMFA said that it was a grave offence to mislead the court by undertaking an oath that it was the original report which was presented in the court. But only 15 pages of the report were given and that too with many of the tables missing in the writ petition, said the PMFA.