Government should factor in budget constraints when coming up with welfare schemes/laws: Supreme Court

While coming up with welfare schemes or laws, governments should factor in the financial impact they could have on the State exchequer, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday. .A Bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha highlighted how the Right to Education Act is a classic example of short-sightedness in this regard."This is an unsolicited advice. Whenever you come up with such schemes, you must come up with the financial impact. Right to Education is a classic example. The Act was made, but where are the schools? Where do the States get the teachers? Most get 5,000 only," Justice Lalit remarked..He added that when such cases come up before the courts, the government cites budget constraints."You have to see this in totality. Please work in this direction, otherwise this becomes only a lip service," Justice Lalit said..The Court was hearing a plea seeking to plug massive gaps in the infrastructure provided under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) across the country, in order to provide effective legal aid to women who are abused in matrimonial homes. The plea also sought the creation of shelter homes for such women to stay in after filing complaints under the Act..During the hearing of the matter on February 25, the Court had noted that many states had chosen to designate revenue officers or members of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) as 'protection officers' under the Act. This, the Court had said, was not the intent of the lawmakers, since such revenue or administrative officials would be unable to devote time to discharge the fairly intense work required and expected of protection officers. It was also noted that in some states, the number of protection officers was disproportionately small compared to the geographical dispersion and vastness of the state..The Court had, therefore, asked the Central government to file an affidavit giving the following details:a. The nature of Central Programmes/Plans outlining assistances to support the efforts under the DV Act by various States, including the extent of funding, conditions of governing financial support and the control mechanisms in place;b. State-wise relevant data of litigation under the DV Act with respect to the complaints made, number of courts, and, the relative number of protection officers. c. The broad desirable qualifications and eligible terms for creation of regular cadre of protection officers as well as the nature of their training and other standards. d. The desirable cadre structure and career progression for the protection officers. e. The model terms and conditions for such protection officers..When the matter was taken up for hearing on Wednesday, the Bench reiterated that a revenue officer cannot double up as a protection officer."It is a specialised kind of job which needs different training," said Justice Lalit."They have been trained," replied Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati."First, you have to get the data on how much reporting of violence is happening and then develop statistics on how many cadre required per states and then given them models and then look at the funding required to sustain the cadres," Justice Bhat weighed in..The Court noted that a letter has been circulated by the Central government seeking some more time to file its report.It, therefore, adjourned the matter to April 26."Let a status report be filed in two weeks with an advance copy to the petitioner. List this matter for consideration on April 26,2022," the Court said.