Supreme Court's scathing remarks / Before bringing a welfare scheme, see the financial impact, so that it does not become a 'jumla' only.

The Supreme Court said that before introducing welfare schemes or legislation, governments should assess the financial impact on the state exchequer. If the schemes are not looked at in a holistic manner, it will become a jumla. 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 perfect example of short-sightedness.

Law made, but where are the schools? Justice Lalit said, various authorities including municipalities, state governments have to build schools. However, they do not get teachers. In some states, there are Shikshamitras, who get only Rs 5,000 in lieu of regular payment. When such cases come to the courts, the government cites budget constraints. He said, please work in this direction, otherwise it will become a mere jumla.

The bench was hearing a plea seeking filling of a massive gap in the basic structure of the Domestic Violence Act, enacted with a view to protect women across the country. There is a need to fill this gap, so that effective legal aid can be provided to the women facing abuse, the petition said. The petition also sought construction of a shelter home for such women after registering a complaint under the law.

Courtroom Live: Supreme Court said – Revenue officers cannot be good protection officers

Justice Lalit: A revenue officer cannot be a good protection officer. It is a special type of job, which requires different training.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati: He has been trained.

Justice Bhat: First you have to get the data on how much violence is being reported and then develop the data on how many cadres are needed per state and then model them and look at the money needed to maintain the cadres.

Asked the central government to submit a report in two weeks

The Court observed that the Central Government has sought some more time to file the report. Therefore, the Center has been asked to file the report in two weeks. The next hearing will be on April 26. The bench had earlier quashed the practice of nominating a protection officer.

The lack of conservation officers affected the plan

The bench, during the hearing of the matter on February 25, had observed that several states had chosen to designate revenue officers or IAS officers as 'protection officers' under the Act. The court had said that this was not the intention of the law makers, as such officers would not be able to give the requisite time to do this work. The court also observed that some states have less number of conservation officers. After this, the court had asked the central government to give detailed information in this regard by filing an affidavit.