The Supreme Court asked the BSP leader on Tuesday why it should not intervene when an “astronomical” amount of public money was being spent on such constructions.
Uttar Pradesh (UP) chief minister Mayawati may have to do a lot of explaining on the whopping Rs2,600 crore she spent on installing statues of Dalit leaders across the state.
The Supreme Court (SC) asked the BSP leader on Tuesday why it should not intervene when an “astronomical” amount of public money was being spent on such constructions.
“Supposing you spend an astronomical and unconscionable amount, should the court not say anything in this regard?” an anguished bench of justices HS Bedi and AK Patnaik asked UP counsel Harish Salve.
“There is no difficulty if you are constructing memorials. What matters is the huge amount spent on it,” the bench added.
Judges also wondered whether the court should remain a silent spectator if public money, for instance, meant for construction of primary schools or hospitals, is diverted for erecting such memorials.
Salve argued that the petitions filed by NGO Gomtinagar Kalyan Sanstha and others, challenging the construction of the statues, were not maintainable. He said the state had the right to spend its budgetary allocation the way it wanted.
The petitions amounted to challenging the appropriation bill passed by the state legislature, the counsel contended, adding that the lawsuits were aimed at pitting one constitutional wing against the other.
“It’s a thinly-disguised power [petition] to use one constitutional power against another.... a concerted attempt to pit one institution against another,” Salve said.
However, judges asked whether the construction of the memorials was more important than other public causes enunciated under the “directive principles” of the Constitution such as potable water, free medical aid, education and health. They asked whether the government could spend on the memorials even as it does not have money to set up schools.
“Say, you do not have money for construction of primary schools. But will you still build memorials?” the bench said.
Salve responded that the petitioners did not have this grievance, but had moved court on technical grounds such as change in the master plan. He said necessary amendments were carried out in the master plan for the constructions.
The arguments will resume on Wednesday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=spacer}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}