The Supreme Court on Tuesday verbally observed that while state governments seem to have money to provide “freebies” to citizens who do not work, a financial crunch is cited when paying salaries and pensions of judges of the district judiciary, Bar and Bench reported.
Social welfare schemes such as free public transport and concessions in electricity bills are referred to as “freebies” by some.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih made the comment while responding to a submission by Attorney General R Venkataramani that the government needs to take into consideration its financial constraints when it decides the pay scale and retirement benefits of judicial officers, The Indian Express reported.
The observation was made while hearing a 2015 plea filed by the All India Judges Association on the question of salaries and pensions of judicial officers.
The bench pointed to the Ladli Behna scheme and the promises made by political parties ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections.
“The states have all the money for the people who don’t do any work,” Bar and Bench quoted Gavai as saying. “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.”
He added: “In Delhi, we have announcements now from some party or the other saying they will pay Rs 2,500 if they come to power.”
The Delhi government on December 12 approved the Mahila Samman Yojana to provide Rs 1,000 per month to women above the age of 18. The national capital’s ruling Aam Aadmi Party has promised to increase the amount to Rs 2,100 per month if it retained power in the election.
On Tuesday, the Congress announced that it will pay Rs 2,500 to women in Delhi under its Pyari Didi Yojana if it wins the polls.
In response, Venkataramani contended that the promises could be considered an aberration and that real concerns about the states’ financial burdens should be considered.
The Supreme Court had previously raised concerns that the pension paid to district judges is meagre, Bar and Bench reported.
In 2013, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the distribution of largesse by the state to eligible and deserving persons was directly related to the Directive Principles of State Policy and warranted no interference by the judiciary.
In August 2022, the court referred another petition seeking restrictions on freebies by political parties to a three-judge bench.
Several political parties have filed intervention applications before the court, arguing that social welfare schemes cannot be described as freebies.
The Union government and the Election Commission were asked by the Supreme Court in October to respond to a fresh petition challenging freebies during elections.
Also read:
- How the row over ‘freebies’ hides India’s failure to meet the basic needs of its citizens
- ‘Freebie’ row: Six charts explain why states must be allowed to make their own decisions on welfare
- What’s the difference between ‘freebies’ for the poor and ‘business incentives’ for the rich?
Buy an annual Scroll Membership to support independent journalism and get special benefits.
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!