SUPREME COURT SLAMS PUNJAB GOVT IN PENSION CASE:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a sharp rebuke to the Punjab government for claiming that it was not bound by the statements made by its counsel before the court, a stance that drew strong criticism from the Bench.

A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh came down heavily on Punjab’s Chief Secretary, KAP Sinha, reprimanding him for failing to provide clear and direct answers to the Court’s pointed queries. The judges expressed their dissatisfaction with the evasive responses, emphasizing the importance of government accountability in judicial proceedings.

The case revolves around the demand for extending the benefits of the Punjab Privately Managed Aided Colleges Pension Scheme, 1996, to certain employees. While the state government had repealed the scheme retrospectively, it had previously assured the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the petitioners would continue to receive its benefits. This contradiction in the government’s stance raised serious concerns before the Supreme Court.

In a previous order, the top court had directed Chief Secretary KAP Sinha to appear in person for the hearing. During the proceedings, the Bench expressed its frustration, remarking that the government seemed to be taking the Court for a ride by failing to uphold its commitments and making inconsistent representations before judicial forums.

"Mr. Sinha is it not correct that repeatedly you gave undertaking to the court and see the submissions made. That the undertaking is given by my executive, State is not bound by it. What kind of submission is this? Now we will issue contempt notice...," Justice Oka said.

The Court added, "Now you tell us, we will give you choice against whom contempt notice should be issued repeatedly undertakings are given, false statements are being made in the last affidavit. You tell us should be issue it to you or you name an officer we will issue it to him..."

Sinha requested additional time to submit an affidavit. However, the Court firmly stated that its previous order was already explicit and left no room for ambiguity, emphasizing that further delays were unwarranted.

"You should have done that [implementation] by today. This is the height of it. Repeatedly statements are made to the Court, assurance is given. This is the height of it. Shamelessly we are told that these statements made by the Advocate General are by the executive and are not by the State? This is the shameless act on the part of the government. Most shameless act," it added.

The Court issued a stern warning, stating that it would refrain from recording the oral statements made by the counsel representing the Punjab government in the future. This decision was prompted by the government's inconsistent stance, which had cast doubt on the reliability of such statements before the judiciary.

"Hereafter as far as this State is concerned, we will not record statement of any counsel. Every time a statement is made across the bar we will ask the lawyer to file affidavit of the officer," Justice Oka said.

"We will issue contempt. Then first we will deal with contempt, let officers go to jail and thereafter we'll hear you. What is this going on? Mr. Sinha are you justifying this? That the statements made by the AG are by the executive and not by the State?"

In response, Sinha stated that he agreed with the Court. However, the Court pressed him further, demanding a clear answer on whether the benefit would be extended to the petitioners.

"We are asking you a question you must answer it straight. Either yes or no. You want to give benefit or you don't want to. Answer yes or no!,' Justice Oka said.

Sinha stated that he could not act against the decision of the legislature. However, the Court remained firm and refused to back down.

"Mr. Sinha tell us are you giving them the benefit or not. One of the two answers we want. If you say no we will record it and then issue contempt notice. So you are not able to give answer?"

A prolonged exchange ensued, with the Court repeatedly pressing Sinha for a clear 'yes or no' answer, while he continuously avoided providing a direct response and the Court then adjourned the matter.