Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Supreme Court's Big Remark On Freebies Feb 12, 2025

Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?"

"Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?" Supreme Court's Big Remark On FreebiesThe Supreme Court was hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas.

Reported by:

Ashish Bhargava

India News

Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST

Published On

Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST

Last Updated On

Feb 12, 2025 17:59 pm IST

Read Time:

4 mins

TwitterWhatsAppFacebookRedditEmail

"Are We Not Creating Class Of Parasites?" Supreme Court's Big Remark On Freebies

The bench said people were getting ration and money without working.New Delhi:

Making strong observations on the practice of political parties announcing freebies ahead of elections, the Supreme Court has said people are "not willing to work" because of them and wondered whether a "class of parasites" was being created in the country.

Hearing a matter on the right to shelter of homeless persons in urban areas, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih said people were getting ration and money without working.

"Rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of the society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?" the bench asked.

Pulling no punches, Justice Gavai referred to the 'Ladki Bahin' scheme in Maharashtra - under which women in the age group of 21-65 with an annual family income of less than Rs 2.5 lakh get Rs 1,500 per month - and similar programmes run by ruling parties in other states and said, "Unfortunately, because of these freebies, which just on the anvil of elections are declared, like 'Ladki Bahin' and other schemes, people are not willing to work... They are getting free ration and money without doing any work."

"We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?" the bench asked.

When Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said there was hardly anybody in the country who did not want to work if they got work, he was interrupted by Justice Gavai, who went on to cite an example.

"You must be having only one-sided knowledge. I come from an agricultural family. Because of the freebies in Maharashtra which they announced just prior to elections, agriculturists are not getting labourers," he said.

'Need For Balance'

The bench noted that everybody, including Attorney General R Venkataramani, was on the same page that providing shelter to the homeless merited attention but asked, "At the same time, should it not be balanced?"

Mr Venkataramani said the Centre was finalising the urban poverty alleviation mission, which would tackle issues like providing shelter to the urban homeless. The bench asked the Attorney General for a timeline and also said the Centre should gather information from all states so that the issue could be considered on a pan-India basis.

When one of the petitioners said the cause of the homeless was not being addressed as it was last on the priority and that the authorities showed compassion only for the rich and not the poor, his arguments were shot down by Justice Gavai.

"Don't make a political speech here. We won't permit our courtrooms to be converted into (an arena for) political battle... How do you say the compassion is shown only for the rich? Even for the government, how can you say this?"

The matter will now be heard after six weeks.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has spoken out against freebies. In December, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Manmohan was surprised when it was informed by the Centre that 81 crore people are being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013.

On migrant workers who have been receiving free ration since the Covid pandemic, the bench had said, "For how long can freebies be given? Why don't we work to create job opportunities, employment and capacity building for these migrant workers?"

Delhi High Court's Refusal

The Supreme Court's observations came on a day when the Delhi High Court refused to hear a petition filed by a former judge against freebies promised by the Aam Aadmi Party, Congress and BJP ahead of the Delhi Assembly elections on February 5.

In his complaint, Justice SN Dhingra said such promises made by parties amounted to corrupt practices under the Representation of People Act and sought directions to the Election Commission to declare them "unconstitutional". The high court asked the former judge to approach the Supreme Court after it was told that a similar case was already pending before it.

The distribution of freebies has also become a political issue and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has frequently attacked the AAP, Congress and other parties, accusing them of trying to buy people's votes by distributing "revdis". Hitting back, the parties have attacked the BJP-led government's track record on inflation and unemployment and said there is nothing wrong with taxpayer money being used to make people's lives easier.

Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card"

Observing that ration cards have become a "popularity card", the Supreme Court on Wednesday wondered if the benefits meant for the poor percolated to undeserving persons. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.15 hours ago.

Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card" A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.

Press Trust of India

India News

Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST

Published On

Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST

Last Updated On

Mar 19, 2025 21:22 pm IST

Read Time:

5 mins

TwitterWhatsAppFacebookRedditEmail

Supreme Court Flags Ration Card Misuse, Says Its Now A "Popularity Card"

The bench was hearing a plea in a suo motu case (File)New Delhi:

Observing that ration cards have become a "popularity card", the Supreme Court on Wednesday wondered if the benefits meant for the poor percolated to undeserving persons.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh said the benefit of subsidies should reach the genuine beneficiaries.

"Our concern is... are benefits meant for the genuinely poor persons percolating to those pockets who do not deserve it? Ration card has become a popularity card now," said Justice Surya Kant.

The judge went on, "These states just say we have issued these many cards. There are some states who when they have to show their development they say our per capita income is growing. And then when we talk of BPL, they say 75 per cent of the population is BPL. How can these facts be reconciled? The conflict is inherent. We have to ensure that benefits reach the genuine beneficiaries." The top court observed that states showed a high per capita growth when asked to highlight the development index but claimed 75 per cent of their population was below poverty line when it came to subsidies.

The bench was hearing a plea in a suo motu case initiated during the COVID19 pandemic to address the miseries of migrant labourers.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for some intervenors, said the anomaly stemmed from the inequalities in the income of people.

"There are a handful of people, who have huge wealth as compared to other population and per capita income figure is average of total income of the state. The rich continue to be getting richer while the poor remain poor," he said.

The poor migrant workers, who are registered in the e-shram portal of the government, need to be given free ration and the figure was around eight crore people, Bhushan said.

Justice Surya Kant said, "We hope that in the issuance of ration cards, there are no political elements involved. I have not lost my roots. I always want to know the plight of the poor. There are families who continue to be poor." Bhushan said the Centre did not conduct the 2021 Census and was continuing to rely on data from the 2011 Census as a result around 10 crore people, requiring free ration, remained out of the BPL categories.

Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre said the government was giving free ration to around 81.35 crore people under the National Food Security Act and another 11 crore people were covered by another similar scheme.

The bench adjourned the matter and asked the Centre to file its response on the status of free ration distributed to the poor.

On December 9, last year, the top court frowned upon the freebie culture and stressed on the need to create job opportunities and capacity building for migrant workers.

It was surprised when the Centre informed the court that 81 crore people were being given free or subsidised ration under the National Food Security Act of 2013.

"It means only the tax-payers are left out," it then said.

Bhushan had contended that directions were issued by the top court from time to time to all states and union territories to issue ration cards to migrant workers for availing free ration provided by the Centre.

On November 26, last year, the top court flagged the difficulties surrounding the distribution of freebies and said Covid times were different when distressed migrant workers were provided the relief.

In a judgment on June 29, 2021, and subsequent orders, the top court passed a slew of directions to the authorities asking them to undertake welfare measures, including giving ration cards to all migrant workers, who were in distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, registered with the e-shram portal.

The portal is a comprehensive national database of unorganised workers launched by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment with the primary aim of facilitating the delivery of welfare benefits and social security measures to the country's unorganised sector workers.

On September 2, last year, the top court asked the Centre to file an affidavit giving details about compliance with its 2021 judgement and subsequent directions on providing ration cards and other welfare measures to migrant workers.

The Centre previously said it was providing ration to all those people who were eligible under the National Food Security Act.

The top court, in the 2021 judgement, termed as "unpardonable" the Centre's "apathy and lackadaisical attitude" towards creating the national database for unorganised workers and ordered its commencement by July 31, 2021, for the registration of all migrant workers and providing them with welfare measures.

It had ordered the states and union territories to frame schemes for providing free dry ration to them till the pandemic lasted while asking the Centre to allocate additional foodgrains and directing the department concerned to "allocate and distribute food grains" to migrant labourers".

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Ajit Doval - Rustamji Memorial Lecture 2024 full Text

Can CRPF & BSF perform each others’ duties? NSA Ajit Doval explores idea of ‘interoperability’

‘Vulnerable’ borders stand in the way of India’s economic growth, says NSA Doval at a BSF event, adding that without border security, it's impossible to ensure internal security.

Mayank Kumar

24 May, 2024 10:48 pm IST

NSA Ajit Doval at the BSF investiture ceremony | ANI

New Delhi: Calling the vulnerability of India’s international borders one of the challenges in the path of the country’s future economic prosperity, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval Friday pitched the idea of integrating the Central Police Organisations (CPOs) to ensure that different forces achieve “interoperability” to bring about “homogeneity” in their actions.

Discussing the idea, Doval explored the possibility of mobilising the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which now has the mandate to maintain law and order in states, for anti-naxal operations along the border at times and in places where the Border Security Force (BSF) has the mandate of functioning. Similarly, he explored if the BSF could, at times, be used to deal with challenges to internal security.

Saying that other sectors are seeing this kind of integration, he said CPOs could achieve it because of similar training, equipment and command structures. He, however, prefixed a caveat, saying he was “speaking as an IPS officer and not as an NSA of India.”

Delivering the annual Rustamji Memorial Lecture, held Friday in memory of the first Director General of the Border Security Force, K.F. Rustamji, on the occasion of the BSF’s 21st Investiture Ceremony, Doval said India’s economic growth would have been more rapid and smooth had it not faced adversarial positions on the northern and western borders.

“The weight of border vulnerability was always on internal security — in terms of terrorism, radical ideas, and thoughts that come, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, human trafficking, organised crimes. You name, and we find that. Because of adversarial relations, we find it difficult to manage these situations, or it has become a liability for our internal security,” NSA Doval said during his nearly half-an-hour lecture.

Further emphasising the importance of border security, NSA Doval said that while defining the limit of a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, it is also essential for maintaining internal security. “Unless our borders are secure, our internal security is not under control,” he said.

Friday, February 14, 2025

from a pro-welfare stance to a more pro-corporate orientation

The transformation of the Indian judiciary, including the Supreme Court of India, from a pro-welfare stance to a more pro-corporate orientation over the past 75 years reflects broader socio-economic and political changes in the country. This shift can be traced through key judgments, constitutional interpretations, and the evolving role of the judiciary in balancing individual rights, welfare policies, and corporate interests. Below is an elaboration of this evolution, citing specific cases and judgments:

1. Early Years (1950s–1970s): Pro-Welfare and Social Justice Orientation

In the early years after independence, the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, focused on upholding the welfare state model enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution). The Court emphasized social justice, equitable distribution of resources, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Key Cases:
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case highlighted the conflict between fundamental rights and directive principles. The Court ruled that fundamental rights (Part III) prevailed over directive principles, but it also underscored the importance of affirmative action for social welfare.
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The landmark case introduced the basic structure doctrine, ensuring that the Constitution's core values, including social justice and welfare, could not be amended. This case reinforced the judiciary's role in protecting the welfare state.

During this period, the judiciary often sided with the government's welfare policies, such as land reforms, nationalization of industries, and labor rights.

2. 1980s–1990s: Balancing Welfare and Economic Liberalization

The 1980s saw the beginning of economic liberalization, and the judiciary started to balance welfare policies with the needs of economic growth. This period marked a gradual shift in the Court's approach, as it began to recognize the importance of private enterprise and foreign investment.

Key Cases:
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and emphasized the harmony between fundamental rights and directive principles. However, it also acknowledged the need for economic development.
- Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): This case highlighted the right to livelihood as part of the right to life under Article 21. While it was a pro-welfare judgment, it also reflected the Court's awareness of urban development and corporate interests.

The 1991 economic reforms marked a turning point, as India embraced globalization, privatization, and liberalization. The judiciary began to adapt to these changes, recognizing the role of corporations in driving economic growth.

3. 2000s–2010s: Pro-Corporate Shift and Economic Growth

The post-liberalization era saw a significant shift in the judiciary's approach, with a greater emphasis on facilitating economic growth, protecting corporate interests, and encouraging foreign investment. This period also saw the rise of public interest litigation (PIL), which was sometimes used to address corporate concerns.

Key Cases:
- Vodafone International Holdings v. Union of India (2012): The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vodafone, setting aside a tax demand of over $2 billion. The judgment was seen as pro-corporate, emphasizing the need for a stable and predictable tax regime to attract foreign investment.
- Reliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited (2010): The Court's intervention in this corporate dispute highlighted its role in resolving complex commercial matters, often favoring corporate efficiency and contractual obligations.
- SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation (2012): The Court upheld the regulatory framework for protecting investors, but it also reinforced the importance of corporate accountability and transparency.

During this period, the judiciary also supported policies like the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), which were aimed at creating a business-friendly environment.

4. Recent Years (2010s–2020s): Pro-Corporate Stance and Judicial Activism

In recent years, the Supreme Court has increasingly taken a pro-corporate stance, often prioritizing economic growth and corporate interests over welfare policies. This shift is evident in cases involving environmental clearances, land acquisition, and labor laws.

Key Cases:
- Sterlite Industries Case (2018): The Court allowed the reopening of the Sterlite copper plant in Tamil Nadu, despite concerns about environmental pollution and public protests. The judgment emphasized the importance of industrial growth and employment generation.
- Aadhaar Judgment (2018): While the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, it also allowed its use for corporate purposes, such as linking it to bank accounts and mobile numbers, which raised concerns about privacy and data protection.
- ArcelorMittal Case (2018): The Court approved the takeover of bankrupt Essar Steel by ArcelorMittal, prioritizing the resolution of corporate debt and the interests of creditors over those of workers and smaller stakeholders.

The judiciary has also supported government initiatives like Make in India and Digital India, which are aimed at boosting corporate investment and economic growth.

Factors Contributing to the Shift

Economic Liberalization: The 1991 reforms necessitated a shift in the judiciary's approach to align with the needs of a market-driven economy.
Globalization: Increased foreign investment and global trade required the judiciary to create a favorable legal environment for corporations.
Corporate Influence: The growing influence of corporate lobbying and the rise of corporate law firms have shaped legal discourse and judicial outcomes.
Judicial Pragmatism: The judiciary has increasingly recognized the importance of economic growth and job creation, often prioritizing these over welfare policies.

Criticism and Concerns

While the pro-corporate shift has contributed to economic growth, it has also raised concerns about:

Environmental Degradation: Fast-tracking clearances for industrial projects has led to ecological damage.
Labor Rights: Judgments favoring corporate efficiency have often undermined workers' rights.
Social Inequality: The focus on corporate interests has sometimes come at the expense of marginalized communities and welfare policies.

Conclusion

The Indian judiciary's transformation from a pro-welfare to a pro-corporate stance reflects the country's evolving economic priorities. While this shift has facilitated economic growth and global integration, it has also sparked debates about the balance between corporate interests and social justice. The Supreme Court's role in navigating this complex landscape will continue to shape India's socio-economic future.

Judiciary - From pro-welfare policies to pro-corporate stance

కారుణ్యం నుండి కార్పొరేట్ల సేవలో

The Supreme Court of India has undergone a significant transformation over the decades in its approach towards corporate interests, affirmative action, and social welfare. Initially, the court was a champion of socialist and pro-welfare policies, but in the post-liberalization era, especially in the last two decades, it has increasingly sided with corporate interests and diluted affirmative action measures. Below is an evolution of this shift, along with key cases that illustrate this trend.

I. Early Years: Socialist Leaning and Welfare-Oriented Approach (1950s–1970s)

During this period, the Supreme Court largely upheld state intervention in the economy and supported socialist policies. This was evident in cases such as:

Champakam Dorairajan Case (1951) – Initially struck down caste-based reservations, but Parliament responded with the First Amendment to the Constitution, introducing Article 15(4) to enable affirmative action.

Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) – The court ruled that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights, which was later overturned to uphold welfare-oriented amendments.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Though the court limited Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution, it allowed economic policies favoring social justice.

During this phase, the Supreme Court generally supported land reforms, nationalization policies, and welfare schemes.

II. Shift Towards Economic Liberalization (1980s–1990s)

During the tenure of Chief Justices like P.N. Bhagwati and Krishna Iyer, the court actively engaged in Public Interest Litigations (PILs), expanding access to justice for marginalized communities. However, as liberalization began in 1991, the court started favoring economic policies aligned with privatization.

Key cases:

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – Upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations for OBC reservations but imposed the "50% cap" on reservations, limiting affirmative action.

BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India (2002) – The court ruled that economic policy decisions, such as disinvestment, were beyond judicial review, signaling a pro-privatization stance.

This era saw a gradual retreat from socialist principles, with the court allowing privatization and limiting state intervention in corporate matters.

III. Corporate Dominance and Weakening of Affirmative Action (2000s–Present)

With globalization, the Supreme Court increasingly supported corporate interests while diluting social welfare programs and affirmative action.

1. Pro-Corporate Decisions

Vedanta Sterlite Case (2013, 2019, 2023) – The court allowed Vedanta’s controversial copper plant to continue operations despite environmental violations, showing leniency towards corporate polluters.

Adani Coal Mine Cases (2019–2023) – The Supreme Court upheld government decisions favoring Adani Group in coal mining and port projects, overlooking environmental and displacement concerns.

Vodafone Tax Case (2012) – The court ruled in favor of Vodafone, striking down retrospective taxation, benefiting large corporations at the cost of government revenue.

2. Dilution of Affirmative Action

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – The Supreme Court ruled against the "creamy layer" in SC/ST reservations, restricting reservation benefits within these communities.

NEET Reservation Cases (2021–2023) – The court has consistently delayed or struck down state-specific affirmative action measures in medical education.

3. Anti-Welfare Rulings

Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) – Diluted the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act by making it difficult to file cases, though later overturned after protests.

Demonetization Case (2023) – The Supreme Court upheld demonetization despite its devastating impact on small businesses and workers, reinforcing government economic policies favoring big players.

Why This Shift?

Judicial Appointments and Collegium Bias – Post-liberalization, judges with pro-corporate and neoliberal inclinations have been increasingly appointed.

Influence of Globalization and Neoliberalism – The judiciary aligns with economic liberalization policies, treating corporate growth as "national interest."

Weakening of PILs and Activism – The judiciary that once expanded rights through PILs has now become more status quo-oriented, limiting social justice interventions.

Judicial Overreach in Economic Policy – While earlier courts protected state welfare schemes, the modern court often upholds economic policies favoring corporate expansion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, once an institution protecting social justice and affirmative action, has steadily shifted towards a pro-corporate stance while diluting social welfare measures. Landmark cases illustrate this transition, showing increasing judicial deference to big businesses and a growing reluctance to uphold progressive social policies. This shift is a reflection of broader economic and political trends in India post-1991.

Justices B R Gavai SCI on freebies - creating a sort of parasite

Justices B R Gavai SCI on freebies - creating a sort of parasite

Supreme Court criticises election freebies: ‘People not willing to work’

HT News Desk

Feb 12, 2025 02:21 PM IST

The Supreme Court criticized the practice of announcing freebies before elections, claiming it discourages willingness to work among people.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on announcing freebies before elections during a hearing, observing that the practice is allowing people to not want to work since they are getting free rations and money, reported news agency PTI.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih made the observation. (File)(PTI)

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih expressed disapproval of the practice of offering freebies before polls while hearing a matter relating to homeless people’s right to shelter in urban areas, the report said.

What Supreme Court said

"Unfortunately, because of these freebies... the people are not willing to work. They are getting free rations. They are getting amount without doing any work," said Justice Gavai.

The bench also observed that homeless people should be included in mainstream society and allowed to contribute to the nation’s development.

"We quite appreciate your concern for them, but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation," said the bench.

Hindustan Times

The Centre is working to finalise the mission of urban poverty alleviation to address several issues, including providing shelter to the homeless in urban areas, attorney general R Venkataramani told the bench.

The bench in response asked the attorney general to confirm how much time it would take to apply the mission from the Centre. The matter will now be heard six weeks later.

SC Bench’s red line on freebies: What the top court has said earlier

In 2013, the SC had held that the “state distributing largesse... is directly related to Directive Principles of State Policy” and warrants no interference by the Court

By: Express News Service

New Delhi | February 12, 2025 18:37 IST

The freebie issue has come up in the Supreme Court earlier as well through petitions. (Express archive/ Amit Mehra)

A Supreme Court Bench Wednesday came down heavily on freebies ahead of elections and said it was “disincentivising people from working” and was “drying up the labour force”.

A Bench of Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih was hearing a plea regarding shelter homes for the homeless when a counsel submitted that the policies are only designed for the rich.

The Court, however, replied that the counsel for the Delhi government had informed that the shelters were in a dilapidated state. Justice Gavai added that an affidavit filed in the matter talks about the facilities to be provided and remarked, “”We quite appreciate your concern for them but would it not be better to make them a part of the mainstream of society and permit them to contribute to the development of the nation?” the bench asked.

Gavai added: “So, rather than promoting them to be a part of the mainstream of society by contributing to the development of the nation, are we not creating a class of parasites?”

Freebies ease the poor into a parasitic life, draining them of the will to find work: Justice Gavai

The Bench was hearing petitions dealing with the lack of sufficient number of night shelters to house the urban homeless in the national capital

Updated - February 12, 2025 09:12 pm IST - New Delhi

Krishnadas RajagopalKrishnadas Rajagopal

Justice B.R. Gavai said steps to make the poor and the disadvantaged part of the mainstream were better than offering them freebies. File.

Justice B.R. Gavai said steps to make the poor and the disadvantaged part of the mainstream were better than offering them freebies. File. | Photo Credit: G. Ramakrishna

Supreme Court judge, Justice B.R. Gavai, on Wednesday (February 12, 2025) asked whether untrammelled freebies lull the poor into a parasitic existence, depriving them of any initiative to find work, join the mainstream, and contribute to national development.

“Rather than making them contribute to the development of the nation, are we not creating a sort of parasite? Because of these benefits, people do not want to work,” Justice Gavai, heading a Bench also comprising Justice A.G. Masih, observed orally.

The politics of ‘freebies’ and judicial oversight

The Bench was hearing petitions dealing with the lack of sufficient number of night shelters to house the urban homeless in the national capital. At one point, a lawyer submitted that the existing night shelters were uninhabitable.

“Between a shelter which is uninhabitable and sleeping on the road, what is more preferable?” Justice Gavai countered.

The discussion in court also touched on free ration and welfare schemes for the urban homeless, who were usually migrants from the rural parts of the country in search of work.

Justice Gavai said steps to make the poor and the disadvantaged part of the mainstream were better than offering them freebies.

“Look at the practical aspects… Nobody wants to work for they will get free ration… We have recognised the rights to shelter and work. But at the same time, should it not be balanced?” Justice Gavai asked.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing on the petitioners’ side, submitted that the rural poor migrate to urban parts for work.

“If they have work, they will work. They have come to the city to find work. The jobs they get are menial… They cannot even afford shelter,” Mr. Bhushan addressed the Bench.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani, for the Centre, informed the court that the government was framing schemes to help alleviate urban poverty. These schemes would include shelter for the urban homeless.

The court directed the Centre to file an affidavit in six weeks, detailing the time required to finalise and implement the schemes, and what aspects they would cover.

Appearing for the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), senior advocate Devadutt Kamat submitted that night shelters were well-provided for, and officials do the rounds to convince the homeless to come to these shelters, and they, however, refuse to do so.

The apex court has been looking out for the welfare of the poor and homeless, noting that the right to shelter and safety was a fundamental right.

In 2016, the top court had observed that the city’s poor shiver in the winter cold as welfare measures, including the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM) scheme, continued to remain a distant dream.

At the time, the court had directed a Committee headed by a former Delhi High Court judge, Justice Kailash Gambhir, to be constituted to verify the availability of night shelters, and whether their operations were in compliance with the NULM’s guidelines.

Mr. Bhushan had submitted that the total capacity of shelter homes in Delhi was only around 17,000 persons, and the DUSIB had demolished nine shelter homes. Mr. Kamat had responded that six temporary shelter homes were destroyed due to floods in the River Yamuna in 2023, and they had been abandoned since June 2023.

Supreme Court: ఉచితం.. అనుచితం!

ABN , Publish Date - Feb 13 , 2025 | 05:17 AM

దేశవ్యాప్తంగా పలు రాజకీయ పార్టీలు పోటీలు పడి ప్రకటిస్తున్న ‘ఉచిత’ పథకాలపై సుప్రీంకోర్టు సంచలన వ్యాఖ్యలు చేసింది. ఎన్నికలకు ముందు అలా ఉచితాలను పంపిణీ చేసే పద్ధతి సరైంది కాదని..

Supreme Court: ఉచితం.. అనుచితం!

పథకాలతో పరాన్నజీవులను సృష్టిస్తున్నామా?

ఏ పనీ చేయకుండానే రేషన్‌, డబ్బులు

దీంతో పని చేయడానికి ఇష్టపడట్లేదు

మహారాష్ట్రలో ఎన్నికలముందు పథకాలతో

రైతులకు కూలీలు దొరకడంలేదు

నిరాశ్రయులను ప్రధాన స్రవంతిలోకి తేవాలి

దేశాభివృద్ధికి వారూ తోడ్పడేలా చేయాలి

సుప్రీం కోర్టు సంచలన వ్యాఖ్యలు

‘‘నిరాశ్రయులను ప్రధాన స్రవంతిలో భాగం కానివ్వాలి. వారిని దేశాభివృద్ధికి తోడ్పడేలా మార్చాలి. కానీ... దీనికి బదులు ఇన్నిన్ని ఉచిత సౌకర్యాలు కల్పిస్తున్నారు! ఇలా చేయడం ద్వారా మనం ఒక పరాన్నజీవుల వర్గాన్ని సృష్టించడం లేదంటారా? ఎన్నికలకు ముందు ప్రకటించే లాడ్లీ బెహన్‌ తదితర ఉచిత పథకాల వల్ల... ప్రజలు పనిచేయడానికి ఇష్టపడట్లేదు. ఎలాంటి పనీ చేయకుండానే వారికి ఉచిత రేషన్‌, డబ్బులు అందుతున్నాయి’’

- సుప్రీం కోర్టు

నేనూ వ్యవసాయ కుటుంబం నుంచే వచ్చాను. మహారాష్ట్రలో ఎన్నికలకు ముందు ఉచిత పథకాలను ప్రకటించి అమలు చేయడంవల్ల రైతులకు కూలీలు దొరకడం లేదు. ప్రతి ఒక్కరికీ ఇంటి వద్ద ఉచితంగా రేషన్‌, డబ్బులు వస్తుంటే వారు పనికి ఎందుకు వస్తారు?

-జస్టిస్‌ బీఆర్‌ గవాయ్‌

న్యూఢిల్లీ, ఫిబ్రవరి 12 (ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి): దేశవ్యాప్తంగా పలు రాజకీయ పార్టీలు పోటీలు పడి ప్రకటిస్తున్న ‘ఉచిత’ పథకాలపై సుప్రీంకోర్టు సంచలన వ్యాఖ్యలు చేసింది. ఎన్నికలకు ముందు అలా ఉచితాలను పంపిణీ చేసే పద్ధతి సరైంది కాదని.. ఉచిత పథకాల మూలంగా ప్రజలు పనిచేయడం మానేస్తున్నారని ఆందోళన వ్యక్తం చేసింది. ఉచితాలు ఇవ్వడం ద్వారా మనం పరాన్నజీవుల వర్గాన్ని సృష్టిస్తున్నామా? అని ప్రశ్నించింది. ఢిల్లీలో ఇల్లులేని వారికి ఆశ్రయం కల్పించాలంటూ సీనియర్‌ న్యాయవాది ప్రశాంత్‌ భూషణ్‌ దాఖలు చేసిన ప్రజాహిత వ్యాజ్యంపై విచారణ సందర్భంగా.. జస్టిస్‌ బీఆర్‌ గవాయ్‌, జస్టిస్‌ ఏజీ మాసి్‌హతో కూడిన ధర్మాసనం పలు తీవ్ర వ్యాఖ్యలు చేసింది. ఎన్నికలకు ముందు మహారాష్ట్రవంటి రాష్ట్రాల్లో లాడ్లీ బెహన్‌ వంటి పథకాలను ప్రవేశపెట్టడంతో ప్రజలు ఉచితాలపైనే ఆధారపడుతున్నారని, పనిచేయడానికి ఇష్టపడడం లేదని.. పనిచేయకుండా ఉచిత రేషన్‌ పొందుతున్నారని జస్టిస్‌ గవాయ్‌ వ్యాఖ్యానించారు.

ABN ఛానల్ ఫాలో అవ్వండి

PlayUnmute

Fullscreen

ఈ సందర్భంగా.. ‘‘పని ఉన్నప్పుడు చేయకూడదని ఎవరనుకుంటారు? చాలా మంది గ్రామాల నుంచి పట్టణాలకు వస్తున్నది సరైన పని దొరక్కపోవడం వల్లనే కదా?’’ అని ప్రశాంత్‌ భూషణ్‌ చేసిన వ్యాఖ్యలను ఆయన తిప్పికొట్టారు. ‘‘మీకు ఒక కోణం మాత్రమే తెలిసినట్లున్నది. నేను వ్యవసాయ కుటుంబం నుంచే వచ్చాను. మహారాష్ట్రలో ఎన్నికలకు ముందు ఉచితాలను ప్రకటించడం వల్ల రైతులకు కూలీలు దొరకడం లేదు. ప్రతి ఒక్కరికీ ఇంటి వద్ద ఉచితంగా రేషన్‌ లభిస్తుంటే వారు పనికి ఎందుకు వస్తారు?’’ అని ప్రశ్నించారు. ఏదేమైనా ఈ అంశంపై తాము చర్చలోకి వెళ్లాలని భావించట్లేదని పేర్కొన్నారు. నిరాశ్రయులకు ఆశ్రయం కల్పించాలని అటార్నీ జనరల్‌ ఆర్‌ వెంకటరమణి సహా అందరూ అంటారని పేర్కొన్న ధర్మాసనం.. అదే సమయంలో (ఉచితాలకు, పని కల్పించడానికి మధ్య) సమతౌల్యం పాటించాల్సిన అవసరం లేదా అని అభిప్రాయపడింది. ఢిల్లీలో ప్రస్తుత షెల్టర్లలో పరిస్థితులు ఘోరంగా ఉన్నాయని ప్రశాంత్‌ భూషణ్‌ చేసిన వ్యాఖ్యలకు.. ‘‘రోడ్డుపై పడుకోవ డం, నివాసయోగ్యం కాని షెల్టర్‌ హోమ్‌లో ఉండడం.. ఈ రెండింటిలో ఏది మెరుగు?’’ అని జస్టిస్‌ గవాయ్‌ ప్రశ్నించారు.

సమాచారాన్ని సేకరిస్తున్నాం..

పట్టణాల్లో నిరాశ్రయులకు ఆశ్రయం కల్పించేందుకు కేంద్రం ‘పట్టణ పేదరిక నిర్మూలన’ పథకాన్ని ఖరారు చేస్తోందని అటార్నీ జనరల్‌ ధర్మాసనానికి వెల్లడించారు. అది ఎప్పటిలోగా పూర్తవుతుందని న్యాయమూర్తులు ప్రశ్నించగా.. రాష్ట్రాల నుంచి సమాచారం సేకరిస్తున్నామని, దేశవ్యాప్తంగా ఈ పథకాన్ని అమలు చేస్తామని ఆయన చెప్పారు. కాగా.. పట్టణ ప్రాంతాల్లో నిరాశ్రయుల సంఖ్య పెరగడానికి మూలకారణాలపై ఎవరూ దృష్టిసారించకపోవడం దురదృష్టకరమని విచారణ సందర్భంగా ఒక పిటిషనర్‌ పేర్కొన్నారు. ప్రభుత్వం ధనికులను మాత్రమే పట్టించుకుంటోందని, పేదలను విస్మరిస్తోందని ఆయన వ్యాఖ్యానించారు. దీనికి జస్టిస్‌ గవాయ్‌... కోర్టులో రాజకీయ ఉపన్యాసాలు చేయొద్దని, అనవసర ఆరోపణలు చేయొద్దని సూచించారు. కోర్టు గదులను రాజకీయ పోరుకు వేదిక కానివ్వబోమని ఆయన స్పష్టం చేశారు. ‘‘ప్రభుత్వం ధనికులను మాత్రమే పట్టించుకుంటోందని మీరెలా చెప్పగలరు?’’ అని సదరు పిటిషనర్‌ను నిలదీశారు.

ఆ లెక్కలు సరైనవేనా?

అందుబాటులో ఉన్న గణాంకాల ప్రకారం 2024 డిసెంబరు 4 నాటికి దేశవ్యాప్తంగా కేంద్రపాలిత ప్రాంతాలు, రాష్ట్రాలు మంజూరు చేసిన 2557 షెల్టర్లకుగాను.. 1995 షెల్టర్లు పనిచేస్తున్నాయని, వాటిలో 1.16 లక్షల పడకలున్నాయని ధర్మాసనానికి అటార్నీ జనరల్‌ వివరించారు. దీనికి ప్రశాంత్‌ భూషణ్‌.. ఒక్క ఢిల్లీలోనే 3 లక్షల మందికిపైగా నిరాశ్రయులు ఉన్నట్టు ఒక సర్వేలో వెల్లడైందని కోర్టు దృష్టికి తీసుకొచ్చారు. కానీ, ఢిల్లీ అర్బన్‌ షెల్టర్‌ ఇంప్రూవ్‌మెంట్‌ బోర్డు గణాంకాల ప్రకారమే ఢిల్లీలోని షెల్టర్ల సామర్థ్యం 17 వేలు (అంతమంది తలదాచుకునేటన్ని షెల్టర్లు) అని.. వాటిలోనూ కేవలం 5,900 పడకలు మాత్రమే ఉన్నాయని.. సమస్య ఎంత పెద్దదో ఈ అంకెలే చెబుతున్నాయని ఆయన వివరించారు. కాగా.. పిటిషనర్లలో ఒకరైన ఈఆర్‌ కుమార్‌.. రాష్ట్రాలవారీగా నిరాశ్రయుల సంఖ్య, షెల్టర్లు, వాటి సామర్థ్యానికి సంబంధించిన వివరాలను కోర్టుకు సమర్పించారు. దీనికి ధర్మాసనం.. ఆ అంకెలు సరైనవో కావో సంబంధి మంత్రిత్వ శాఖను అడిగి చెప్పాల్సిందిగా అటార్నీ జనరల్‌ను ఆదేశించి, కేసు తదుపరి విచారణను ఆరు వారాలకు వాయిదా వేసింది.

Updated Date - Feb 13 , 2025 | 05:17 AM

Wednesday, December 4, 2024

Supreme Court ruling on socialism, secularism

Supreme Court upholds ‘secular, socialist’ in Preamble of the Constitution

The order was based on a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words ‘socialist, secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 with retrospective application

The court dismissed the pleas and held that 'socialism' and 'secularism' are integral to the basic structure of the Constitution.

What was the original Preamble and how has it evolved? What has been the court’s stand earlier and how has it changed? What was the current case about? What bearing will it have on the society?

Updated - November 27, 2024 12:00 pm IST

Timely reiteration: On the Preamble and the Supreme Court’s order

Verdict on amendments to Preamble is a reminder of the importance of secular values

Updated - November 27, 2024 12:10 pm IST

The Supreme Court of India has done well to rebuff an attempt to question the characterisation of the country as ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the amended Preamble to the Constitution. Sections of the right wing have been uneasy for long about the identification of secularism as one of the attributes of India. This opposition has acquired traction among those who see the combination of the state not favouring or opposing any religion and the constitutional protection for minorities as something that renders the polity “pseudo-secular”. The original assumption of the makers of the Constitution was that the Constitution — with its emphasis on equality before law and equal treatment of all sections, besides the incorporation of the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion and freedom of belief and conscience in the fundamental rights chapter — is inherently secular. In terms of economic policy, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar opposed amendments to include the word ‘socialist’ by arguing that the Constituent Assembly should not tie down future generations to any particular form of economy. Therefore, the words did not form part of the Preamble adopted along with the Constitution in 1949, but were controversially added through the 42nd Amendment enacted during the Emergency. However, that may not be reason enough for the courts to strike down their inclusion based on writ petitions filed in 2020, about 44 years after the amendment.

The Court, in S.R. Bommai (1994), ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. In another case, it said: “Secularism essentially represents the nation’s commitment to treat persons of all faiths equally and without discrimination.” Regarding the term ‘socialist’, it is clear that its presence in the Preamble has not been an impediment to adoption of laws or policies and practices that open up sectors of the economy to open market competition. As the Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar has pointed out, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, “wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith”. Similarly, the term ‘socialism’ embodies “the principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances”. The Court has not countenanced the argument that the inclusion of these words came during the Emergency, when Parliament’s term was extended, noting that this aspect was debated in Parliament in 1978 when the 44th Amendment Act was considered. As the Constitution completes 75 years of existence, the verdict upholding the inclusion of the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ amounts to a timely reiteration of these fundamental attributes.

How ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were inserted in the Preamble, why SC ruled they will stay

How did the Preamble as we know it today come into existence? And why did the court refuse to consider the challenges to how it is phrased?

Written by Ajoy Sinha Karpuram

New Delhi | Updated: November 29, 2024 06:41 IST

Newsguard

clock_logo6 min read

facebook

twitter

PreambleThe preamble of the Constitution serves as a statement clarifying the guiding principles and purpose behind the Constitution of India. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Almost exactly 75 years since the Constitution of India was adopted, the Supreme Court on Monday (November 25) upheld the insertion of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the founding document.

Through the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (42nd Amendment), Parliament during the Emergency enacted a sweeping series of amendments to the Constitution, one of which was labelling India a “SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”.

SC junks pleas seeking removal of words ‘secular’, ‘socialist’ from Constitution’s PreambleThese words were inserted into the Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976 through a Constitutional amendment.The Week News Desk By The Week News Desk Updated: November 25, 2024 19:37 IST

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking the removal of words "secular”, “socialist” and “integrity” from the Preamble of the Constitution.

These words were inserted into the Preamble by the Indira Gandhi government in 1976 through a Constitutional amendment.

"We do not find any legitimate cause or justification for challenging this Constitutional amendment after nearly 44 years,” said a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

The petition was filed by former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy and lawyers Ashwini Updhayay, Balram Singh and Karunesh Kumar Shukla who challenged the amendment.

"The writ petitions do not need further deliberation and adjudication. The amending power of Parliament over the Constitution extends to Preamble,” the CJI said.