'States have money for freebies, not for retired judges': SC
What's the story
The Supreme Court has slammed state governments for their spending priorities, especially their emphasis on election freebies while citing fiscal constraints in disbursing judges' salaries and pensions.
The observation was made by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih during the hearing of a plea filed by the All India Judges Association.
The plea raised concerns over inadequate salaries and retirement benefits of judges.
Fiscal scrutiny
Supreme Court questions state governments' fiscal priorities
During the hearing, Attorney General R Venkataramani contended that fiscal limitations should be considered while fixing pay and perks of judicial officers.
However, the court observed a contradiction in states' financial claims, saying they have money for schemes for non-working people but cite financial problems when it comes to paying judges.
"States have all the money for the people who don't do any work," Justice Gavai remarked.
Election pledges
Court highlights election promises amidst fiscal concerns
The court noted that during elections, parties announce schemes like Delhi's 'Mukhya Mantri Mahila Samman Yojana' by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), promising ₹2,100 monthly to women if re-elected.
The Congress similarly promised ₹2,500 monthly to women voters if they win power in Delhi.
These observations were made ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5, where parties are making various financial promises to secure votes.
Pension woes
Supreme Court expresses concern over judges' pension situation
The Supreme Court also took note of the pension scenario of some retired high court judges, terming it "pitiable."
The court took cognizance of the fact that these pensions ranged between just ₹10,000-₹15,000.
The observation was made while hearing a 2015 petition filed by the All India Judges Association seeking pension benefits for retired judges.