Supreme Court says State Govt can provide free money to people but not provide decent salary benefits to Judges
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of India expressed concern over the financial priorities of state governments, highlighting a disparity between their ability to fund election-related freebies and their reluctance to adequately pay district judges. A bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih made these remarks in response to a submission by Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, who argued that financial constraints were a consideration when determining the pay and retirement benefits of judicial officers.
Justice Gavai pointed out the irony that while states claim financial difficulties when it comes to paying district judges’ salaries and pensions, they seem to have ample funds for various freebies. He referred to schemes like Maharashtra’s Laadli Behna Yojana and similar promises made by political parties in the upcoming Delhi assembly elections. Justice Gavai remarked, “The states 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 schemes where you pay fixed amounts. In Delhi, some parties are now announcing ₹2,500 payments if they come to power.”
The court’s remarks came during the hearing of a petition filed in 2015 by the All India Judges Association, which had raised concerns about the inadequate pension rates for district judges in India. The court previously pointed out that even when district judges are elevated to higher courts, the difficulties regarding their pension and pay are not resolved.
Meanwhile, Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar addressed the issue of freebies in election campaigns. He stated that it was challenging to define what exactly constitutes a “freebie” and noted that the Election Commission’s hands were tied on the matter, as it is currently subjudice. Speaking at the announcement of the Delhi assembly election schedule, Kumar emphasized the need for clear and legal answers on the issue.
Regarding political parties promising freebies, Kumar referred to a court judgment that had ruled that freebies were not inherently illegal. He added, “What is a freebie for me may be an entitlement for someone else… It is very difficult to define what a freebie is.”
The ongoing debate over freebies versus judicial salaries continues to raise questions about state spending priorities and the financial well-being of the judiciary.
