“You have made a drastic statement against me all because I chose to stand with an old lady,” the judge said to the State lawyer after he objected to an observation by the bench.
On Friday, a heated exchange took place during the pension payment hearing for 78-year-old widow Mariyakutty in the Kerala High Court, with a judge and a government pleader representing the Kerala government at odds.
Today, Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed that due to its current financial situation, the state government is unable to provide for Mariyakutty’s pension requirements. Since July of this year, the central government has not contributed its portion to the pension scheme in question (the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension), according to the state government’s petitioner.
However, the Court rejected the state government pleader’s contention that the widow’s conduct was influenced by political considerations. “A common woman pitted against the power of the government.” I am not in possession of the information that you are providing. Kindly refrain from requiring me to give judicial notice of your statements. What exactly is gained by discrediting the petitioner? “Your statement will be recorded,” remarked Justice Ramachandran. In her petition, Mariyakutty requested a widow pension of ₹1,600 per month. Both the state and central administrations had previously been subject to severe penalties by the High Court for their failure to timely disburse the pension. Additionally, Justice Ramachandran stated that a senior citizen such as Mariyakutty is a court VIP.
On Friday, the judge commenced his order by lamenting the state attorney’s assertion that the widow had not petitioned the High Court with any genuine “desire” to obtain relief. Nevertheless, the dictation of the order was abruptly terminated when the government pleader interrupted to inquire why this specific aspect was receiving preferential treatment in both the court’s order and media coverage.
Justice Ramachandran vehemently disapproved of this development. “Please clarify that statement of yours that I have spoken without substance,” the magistrate advised. “Your Lordship initiated the order with a single word that you extracted from my statement. I am unable to comprehend. Had it been a straightforward instance of an individual submitting a writ petition seeking a benefit, it is likely that the matter would have been resolved sooner… “The government is the target of every type of insinuation,” the government’s pleader replied. “Kindly provide clarification.” What are the implication?” inquired the judge. Justice Ramachandran responded to the government pleader’s reference to specific remarks made by the court during yesterday’s case hearing: “What statement did I make that was not included in my order? Behold my purchase. “Which of my statements is out of order?” “The elected government is attuned to public sentiment.” “They are cognizant of the plight of the people,” stated the government petitioner. Reiterating, “Please clarify your extreme statement against me,” the judge inquired. “I have nothing against you, sir,” replied the government pleader.
In contrast, Justice Ramachandran conveyed his distress regarding the unexpected development by stating, “I shall abstain from my duties if you are unable to provide clarification regarding the profound assertion.” Your statement against me is extremely drastic. I earnestly request and urge any individual across the bar who possesses the ability to elucidate the profound allegation leveled against me to do so. Simply because I opted to support an elderly woman who is the target of specific allegations leveled against her. Your insinuations have been brought to our attention; they do not appear in your statements. I will document your withdrawal of the argument that the petition is motivated by politics. I cannot permit the humiliation of the petitioner. “If you are a responsible officer, kindly withdraw it,” the judge instructed.
In response, the government pleader provided clarification that any statement he may have made that implied the widow had accepted money from another is hereby recanted. “I shall now abide by your assertion. Mud is rather simple to hurl. Do you happen to know in what way it propels you? It circulates within the heart. Only the individual experiencing suffering will comprehend. This was unexpected of you. “Unfortunately, the entire bar heard you, and this is an open forum,” the judge continued.
The Court subsequently issued a revised order in which it stated that, due to the Kerala government’s financial situation, it was unable to issue an interim order requiring Mariyakutty to be paid. The Court observed that it had the ability to devise an alternative method for the widow to remit the dues, which, with a conservative approximation, totaled approximately ₹5,000. The judge noted, however, that this would be unjust to comparable claimants who cannot afford to appear in court. However, the Court inquired of Mariyakutty’s attorney whether the widow would be receptive to receiving financial assistance from alternative sources, including the district legal services authority (DSLA). “I shall defer to the petitioner’s fate for the remainder of the month.” This will be adjourned. “I will request the participation of the DLSA,” Justice Ramachandran declared. It was also requested that the central government, which had not yet received instructions regarding whether or not it had neglected to make contributions to the pension scheme, assist the widow if necessary. This occurred after the Center’s attorney stated that it would assist the widow if at all feasible.
The Court was also appreciative of the petitioner’s determination to advocate for her pension rights and refuse financial assistance from others. “I honor her dignity.” “She stated that she has no desire for charity,” Justice Ramachandran observed.
In light of the petitioner’s plight, Justice Ramachandran stated following today’s hearing that he will not be celebrating Christmas with the petitioner this year. In addition to reiterating his opposition to the arguments put forth, Justice Ramachandran cited media coverage of the judge’s remarks. “What did the media say I said?” I am completely unaware; I do not own a smartphone and do not use social media. It is my intention to cultivate such a state of detachment, as I have no desire to conform to the opinions of others. What concerns do we have if the media construes a remark? Regardless of the criticism, have you reviewed the order? Am I apprehensive about composing orders? As Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul remarked, “How can we (judges) act with favoritism or fear when we are so thoroughly protected?” Justice Kaul was a judge who operated without favoritism or apprehension. I regard him with great honor as my superior sibling (judge). “Where are we going, with all the protection we have, if we cannot act without fear or favor?” Following this, Justice Ramachandran proceeded to the subsequent case.
