Heated exchange between a Kerala High Court judge and a state lawyer over payment of pension to the widow » Today Latest Stories

The hearing in a case related to payment of pension due to a 78-year-old widow named Mariakutty ended on Friday with a heated exchange between a Kerala High Court judge and a state advocate representing the Kerala government.

justice Devan Ramachandran It was said today that the state government cannot meet Mariakutty’s pension needs due to its current financial situation.

The state government’s counsel also asserted that the central government has not contributed its share to the pension scheme in question (Indira Gandhi National Widows’ Pension) since July this year.

However, the court objected to the state government prosecutor’s argument that the widow’s actions were politically motivated.

“An ordinary woman against the tyranny of the state. I do not have the information you say. Please do not say that I should receive judicial notice of anything you say. I do not know what you will get from defaming the petitioner. I will record your statement.” Justice Ramachandran observed.

Mariakutty’s plea sought a monthly widow’s pension of ₹1,600.

The Supreme Court had previously strongly attacked both the state and central governments for failing to disburse the pension on time.

Justice Ramachandran also held that a senior citizen like Mariakutty is a dignitary in the court.

The judge on Friday began his order recording the consternation, stating that the widow had not approached the High Court with any (actual) “desire” for relief.

However, the dictation of the order was quickly cut short when the government prosecutor intervened to ask the bench why this particular aspect was given priority in the court order as well as in media reports.

Justice Ramachandran strongly objected to this turn of events.

“Please clarify what you said without substance“, said the judge.

“Your Honor took one word from my statement and started the matter with this statement. I can not understand. Had it been a simple case of seeking a writ by a person to obtain a benefit, it would probably have been waived earlier… Every kind of insinuation is made against the government.“, replied the government prosecutor.

“please clarify(What) Hints? asked the judge.

When the government counsel referred to some observations made by the court during yesterday’s hearing in the case, Justice Ramachandran added, “What statement did I make that is not part of my order? See my order. Which statement of mine goes beyond the order?”

“The elected government knows the pulse of the people. They realize the suffering of the people“, said the government prosecutor.

“Please clarify your stern statement against me,The judge asked again.

“Not against you, sir“, replied the government prosecutor.

However, Justice Ramachandran went on to express his anguish over the turn of events, saying:

“I excuse myself if you can’t explain (Strict statement). You made a blatant statement against me. If there is anyone across the Bar who can clarify the stern statement against me, I invite and implore you to do so. All because I chose to side with an old lady against whom I had made certain insinuations. We heard the hints you mentioned, but they were not your words. You pull that out (The argument is that the petition is politically motivated) Or I’ll record it. I cannot leave the petitioner to be humiliated. Please withdraw it if you are a responsible officer,“The judge said.

The government prosecutor explained, in response, that if he made a statement at all to suggest that the widow took any money from someone else, that statement would be withdrawn.

“I will follow your statement now. It is easy to sling clay. Do you have any idea how to push? It goes through your heart. Only the person who is suffering will understand it. I did not expect this from you. The entire Bar heard you and unfortunately it is an open forum,The judge went on to note.

The court proceeded to pass a revised order in which it noted that it could not issue any interim order to the Kerala government to pay the Mariakutty amount, given its financial position.

The court noted that it could itself make arrangements for an alternative method of payment of the dues owed to the widow, which amounted to around Rs 5,000 according to a conservative estimate. However, the judge noted that this would be unfair to other similar claimants who could not come to court.

However, the court asked Mariakutty’s lawyer whether the widow was able to obtain financial assistance from other sources, such as the involvement of the District Legal Services Authority (DSLA).

“I will leave the petitioner to the fate of this month. I will postpone this. I will ask the DLSA to participate.” Justice Ramachandran said.

The central government, which is yet to get instructions on whether it has failed to make contributions to the pension scheme, has also been asked to provide assistance to the widow if necessary. This was after the center’s lawyer said that he would provide assistance to the widow if possible.

The court also expressed its appreciation for the petitioner’s will to fight for her right to receive a pension and not to accept money from others.

“I salute her dignity. She said she didn’t want charity.” Justice Ramachandran noted.

After today’s hearing, Justice Ramachandran added that he will not have a Christmas celebration this year, after learning that the petitioner is suffering.

Justice Ramachandran also reiterated his objection to the arguments made by referring to media reports about the judge’s comments.

“What did the media say I said? I have no idea, I don’t have a phone, and I’m not on social media at all. This is the kind of detachment I try to do because I don’t want to be governed by what other people say. If the media interprets a comment, how should we be concerned? Whatever the comment, did you read it? Do I have any fear in typing commands? As Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked us – we (judges) Under so much protection, how can we act with fear or favour? (Judge Cole was) SIf you judge someone who has acted without fear or favour, I am proud to call him my big brother (Judge). With all the protection we have, if we can’t act without fear or favour, where will we go?“, Justice Ramachandran added before moving on to the next case.

This case is scheduled to be heard on January 4.