India’s Supreme Court harshly finds that the state governments have set out priorities in such a way where they may solicit votes through patronization during election time and ignore commitments to these judicial staff. The Court also observed that putting forward references to state avarice that deprives judges of salary payments has no effect when it comes to frivolous expenditure on election goodies.
The Court made a remark that was “When state finances run low, judges are the first casualties. When it comes to luring voters during elections, however, the state offers to pay a hefty sum of Rs 2,100 or Rs 2,500 for votes.” The judicial allocations have over all these years brought this theme recurrently to devastating revelation: pompously overcomes the working needs of the judiciary.
The statement has fuelled discussion about wasted opportunities and wasting public funds in the name of priorities. However, the same states use money to make provisions for populism as a result of which the efficiency and morale of courts are affected because the salary and infrastructure for judges lag behind.
The Supreme Court comment is again on striking a balance between welfare measures and some basic governance functions. It revives, however, paramount issues about the financial management of states and the independence of the judiciary as this debate gains momentum.