The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised concerns over the financial priorities of state governments, questioning their allocation of funds for freebies while claiming a shortage of resources when it comes to paying salaries and pensions to judicial officers.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih made the remarks during a hearing on a pending petition regarding the remuneration of judges. The bench referred to recent initiatives like the Ladli Behna Yojana and the promises made by political parties ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections, emphasizing the disparity in state spending.
Justice Gavai remarked, “The state’s have all the money for the people who don’t do any work. When we talk about financial constraints, we also have to look at this. Come elections, you declare Ladli Behna and other new schemes where you pay fixed amounts. In Delhi, we have announcements now from some party or the other saying they will pay ₹2,500 if they come to power.”
The court’s observations came after Attorney General R. Venkataraman highlighted the growing pension liabilities of the government, stressing that financial constraints must be considered in deciding the issue of judicial pay.
Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar, acting as Amicus Curiae in the case, suggested that the judiciary might need to take proactive measures to ensure adequate pay for judges, which could help create a more diversified and effective judiciary.
The case is also linked to the ongoing debate on political parties distributing freebies ahead of elections. While a two-judge bench in the 2013 Subramaniam Balaji case ruled that distributing largesse in the form of items like color TVs and laptops was in line with the Directive Principles of State Policy and warranted no court interference, the issue has resurfaced. On August 26, 2022, a three-judge bench referred pleas seeking a ban on freebies to a larger bench for reconsideration of the earlier ruling.
Case: All India Judges Association vs Union of India & Ors. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
