The Supreme Court said that before introducing welfare schemes or legislation, governments should evaluate the financial impact on the state exchequer. It will become a mess if the plans are not looked at as a whole. A bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha said on Wednesday that the Right to Education Act is a classic example of short-sightedness.
Laws made, but where are the schools? Justice Lalit said that various authorities including municipalities, state governments have to build schools. Still they do not get teachers. In some states there are Shikshamitras, who are required to pay only Rs. 5,000 is found. When such cases come to court, the government cites budget constraints. He said, please work in this direction, otherwise it will become just a mess.
The bench was hearing a plea seeking widening of the gap in the basic framework of the Domestic Violence Act, which was enacted to protect women across the country. It has been said in the petition that this gap needs to be filled so that effective legal aid can be provided to women facing atrocities. The petition has also sought setting up of shelter homes for such women after a complaint is filed under the law.
Court Room Live: Revenue officers cannot be good security officers, says Supreme Court
Justice Lalit: A revenue officer cannot be a good security officer. This is a special kind of job, which requires different training.
He has been trained by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatia.
Justice Bhatt: First you have to get the data on how much violence is happening and then you have to develop the data on how many cadres are needed per state and then you have to model it and look at the money needed to maintain the cadre.
Asked the central government to submit a report in two weeks
The court said that the central government has sought some more time to file the report. Therefore, the Center has been asked to file the report within two weeks. The next hearing has been fixed for April 26. The bench had earlier rejected the practice of nominating a security officer.
Shortage of defense officers affected the plan
The bench, during the hearing of the matter on February 25, observed that several states have opted to appoint revenue officers or IAS officers as ‘defense officers’ under the law. The court said that this was not the intention of the legislators, as such officers would not be able to devote the necessary time to do so. The court also observed that some states have less number of defense officers. The court then asked the central government to file an affidavit and provide details in this regard.