In a pointed critique of state financial priorities, the Supreme Court of India expressed its displeasure over the allocation of funds for populist schemes at the expense of judicial officers’ salaries and pensions. The oral observations were made by Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih during a hearing on Tuesday.
The remarks came in response to Attorney General R Venkataramani’s submissions regarding the financial constraints faced by the state when determining pay and retirement benefits for judges. Justice Masih highlighted the discrepancy between funds readily available for electoral promises and those allocated to the judiciary.
“The states seem to find ample funds for electoral freebies, like the ‘ladli behna’ and similar schemes promising fixed payouts to certain voter blocks,” Justice Masih observed. “Yet, when it comes to compensating those who have served the judiciary, suddenly the coffers are constrained.”
This discussion emerged while the court was addressing a plea from the All India Judges Association, filed in 2015, which seeks better pension provisions for retired judges. The apex court previously described the situation as “pitiable,” noting that some retired high court judges receive pensions as low as Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000, starkly inadequate in today’s economic climate.
Venkataramani acknowledged the concerns raised but emphasized the need to balance financial commitments, suggesting that the judiciary’s demands must be weighed against other state obligations. However, the bench expressed a clear frustration over what it perceives as misplaced priorities, particularly in the lead-up to elections where promises of financial handouts proliferate.
