Criticising the government's decision to remove the cap on the number of children to make maternity benefits available, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday such facilities cannot be indefinitely sanctioned at the cost of tax payer's money.
NEW DELHI: Criticising the government's decision to remove the cap on the number of children to make maternity benefits available, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday such facilities cannot be indefinitely sanctioned at the cost of tax payer's money.
"You cannot go on producing children and then make the tax payer pay for it. It cannot go on like that. There has to be an end to it," bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S H Kapadia observed.
The apex court made the observation that the tax payer cannot be made to foot the bill of those producing children indiscriminately, after the additional solicitor general Mohan Parasaran, informed the court that the National Maternity Benefit Scheme of 1995 was replaced by Janani Suraksha Yojana in 2005 to remove the cap on two-child norm.
The apex court also chided the Union Government for its failure to rein in the state governments most of which are reportedly diverting the funds earmarked for the 100 per cent centrally sponsored scheme.
Initially, under the scheme every pregnant woman of the BPL (below poverty line) and APL (above poverty line) families were entitled to a cash assistance of Rs 500 per delivery which was restricted to a maximum of two deliveries.
But under the modified proposal, the Centre said it was decided to remove the cap on two deliveries - making the assistance available for every deliveries irrespective of the number of children a woman might deliver in the low performing (LP) states.
The argument of the Centre was that restricting the benefit for only two deliveries "would encourage women of higher fertilities in the LP states to deliver at home in an unsafe condition. Such women are exposed to higher risks of mortality and morbidity too because of neglect on their part to access health care and facilities."
However, the argument failed to convince the apex court which felt that removal of the cap on two deliveries would encourage the beneficiaries to produce more children adding to the country's population woes at the cost of the tax payer's money.
According to the Centre, the JSY scheme was launched from April 12, 2005 as the NMBS was not addressing all the concerns of safe motherhood in a focused manner.
While the NMBW was mainly intended for providing the Rs 500 financial assistance, the JSY is aimed at encouraging the beneficiaries to carry out the deliveries in hospitals and recognised medical institutions instead of home deliveries, which is considered to be the root cause of high maternal and neo-natal mortalities.
Noting that many states were lagging behind in implementing the scheme, the apex court questioned the Government's perceived inaction in monitoring the funds sanctioned to the States under the scheme, which is 100 per cent Centrally sponsored.
"Many of the States are known for diverting the funds. This is the situation with most of other schemes in the country. How are you monitoring the scheme," the bench asked the Additional Solicitor General.
The apex court asked the Centre why it has so far failed to evolve a proper mechanism to monitor the utilisation of the funds and suggested that it should obtain "utilization certificates" from the states to avoid their misuse and diversion.
The bench also observed that the Centre was not keen on monitoring the scheme as non-utilisation of funds would benefit the Government since it need not reimburse the amounts spent by the States.
"You do not want to monitor it because it suits your interests," the apex court observed.
Indicating that it would make both the Centre and states accountable for the effective implementation of the scheme, the apex court later reserved its order on the issue.
"We have to put the stop. You have to think of the tax payer's money also. We have to see the view point of the other side also," the apex court observed while disapproving the proposal to remove the ceiling limit.
The apex court wanted to know the cost estimation on account of the decison to remove the cap limit from two deliveries.
){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}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}