States have money to give freebies but can't pay judges? Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday remarked that while States seem to have enough money to give freebies to people who do no work, they claim financial crunch when it comes paying salary and pension to judges of the district judiciary [All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors.].A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih made the observation in response to a submission by Attorney General for India R Venkataramani that the government has to consider financial constraints when deciding the pay and retirement benefits of judicial officers. The Court specifically cited the Ladli-Behna yojna by the Maharashtra government and the recent promises made by various political parties ahead of the upcoming assembly polls in the national capital."The states have all the money for the people who don’t do any work. When we talk abut financial constraints we also have to look at this. Come elections you declare ladli behana 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 ₹2500 if they come to power," Justice Gavai orally remarked.The AG responded that freebie culture can be considered an aberration and that pragmatic concerns of financial burdens must be taken into account. .The observation was made while the Court was considering a plea filed in 2015 by the All India Judges Association.The Court has previously raised concerns that the pension rates payable to district judges in India are meagre, while also pointing out that such difficulties are not resolved even if district judges are later elevated to High Courts..During today's hearing, amicus curiae Senior Advocate Parameshwar K, argued that the mere fact that Article 309 of the Constitution of India gives the executive and the legislature the power to prescribe the service conditions of judiciary, does not mean that the judiciary does not have any say in the matter. In this regard, the senior counsel cited the doctrine of inherent powers. Exercising such powers in this matter may be necessary to ensure an efficient and independent justice delivery system, he argued. Raising the pay for judicial officers would also go some way in ensuring more diversity in the district judiciary, Parameshwar contended. "If we want a more diversified judiciary, I think we need to pay our judges better, take care of our judges better. Otherwise, the same class of persons will become judges in this country. If we have to get new talent, if we have to get a more diversified judiciary in this country, first generation lawyers have to accept judgeship, those from rural backgrounds have to accept judgeship, financial independence of the judges is a necessity," the Senior Counsel submitted..If we want a more diversified judiciary, I think we need to pay our judges better, take care of our judges better.Sr. Adv. Parameshwar K.The Attorney General then submitted that when the new pension scheme was conceived by the Central government, it had taken into account a wide range of factors including the cumulative financial burden on the State exchequer over a period of time. The AG submitted that the pension liability of the government has burgeoned over the years and that financial constraints must be considered while deciding pay pension scales.Towards the end of today's hearing, AG Venkataramani requested the Court to defer hearing in the case as the Centre may be mooting a notification to address the issues raised in the petition.The Court declined the request noting that the matter has remained pending for several years. However, it said that if any notification is issued after the hearings are over, the AG can inform the Court of the same.The hearing in the case will continue tomorrow.