LI Network
Published on: December 24, 2023 at 12:53 IST
A courtroom clash unfolded during the recent hearing of a case involving the delayed pension payment for 78-year-old widow Mariyakutty in Kerala.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, presiding over the case, found himself in a heated exchange with a government pleader representing the Kerala government.
The state lawyer informed the court that the financial constraints of the state hindered the fulfillment of Mariyakutty’s pension needs. Additionally, it was revealed that the Central government had not contributed its share to the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension scheme since July of that year.
Justice Ramachandran took exception to the government pleader’s assertion that the widow’s actions were politically motivated. Expressing concern for an ordinary woman facing the state’s might, he emphasized his lack of information on the alleged political angle and urged against discrediting the petitioner.
Mariyakutty, seeking a monthly widow pension of ₹1,600, had faced delays in disbursement previously, prompting the High Court to criticize both state and central governments.
In the course of the proceedings, the judge noted the government pleader’s objection to the emphasis on the petitioner’s genuine desire for relief in the court’s order and media reports.
The exchange intensified as Justice Ramachandran sought clarification on statements made against him. The judge expressed his distress over perceived insinuations and contemplated recusing himself if the alleged drastic statements were not clarified.
The government pleader clarified his position, withdrawing any insinuations regarding the widow’s financial activities. However, Justice Ramachandran continued to express his disappointment with the turn of events, emphasizing the impact of mudslinging.
The Court ultimately revised its order, acknowledging the financial constraints of the Kerala government and exploring alternative ways to fulfill the widow’s entitlement. It suggested involvement of the district legal services authority (DLSA) for financial aid and called on the Central government to assist if needed.
Despite the challenges, Justice Ramachandran commended the petitioner’s resilience in fighting for her rights without accepting charity. The judge concluded the hearing by expressing his commitment to the case and announced that the matter would be heard again on January 4.
