Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2002 DIGILAW 131 (SC)

M. C. MEHTA v. State Of T. N.

2002-01-24

B.P.SINGH, G.B.PATTANAIK

body2002
ORDER 1. This matter relates to formulation ofscheme for welfare of the child labour in the country. It has been dragged on forlong time giving ample opportunity to different ministries of the Government to formulate the scheme and produce the same before the Court. On the last occasion it was stated to us that though the scheme has already been finalised, but the Ministers approval has not been obtained and we accordingly, granted time of two weeks, as was prayed for. Today an application has been filed stating therein that notwithstanding finalisation of the scheme by the Social Welfare Ministry, which appears to be the nodal Ministry for child welfare, the scheme requires to be routed through the Finance Ministry as well as through the Planning Commission andprayer has been made for grant of four months time so that the scheme can be duly routed through the appropriate authorities and can be produced before this Court. Since the Prime Minister happens to be the Chairman of the Planning Commission, learned Additional Solicitor General states that some more time is required for the scheme to be routed through the appropriate authorities. We, no doubt, appreciate thatscheme which is required to be approved by the Finance Ministry as well as by the Planning Commission, should be approved by them with any addition or alteration so that the Court can examine the same and pass appropriate directions. We have no doubt that the Finance Ministry would remain busy for the ensuing Budget Session as well as the Prime Minister of the country is busy with several affairs, but at the same time we would like to impress upon both the Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission that their obligation towards child welfare is no less than any other matter and our records revealsad story with several adjournments being given to the different ministries to enable them to prepare and submitscheme for our perusal and for passing appropriate directions therein. 2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accede to the prayer of learned Additional Solicitor General to grant four months time as, in our view, that is too longperiod. 2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accede to the prayer of learned Additional Solicitor General to grant four months time as, in our view, that is too longperiod. But, since the appropriate authorities of the Finance Ministry and the Planning Commission would remain busy with several other matters, we grant eight weeks time from today to enable both the authorities to append their approval with any other suggestion to the scheme which has already been formulated and approved by the Social Welfare Ministry. 3.copy of this order be sent to the Honble Minister of Finance as well as the Honble Prime Minister, who happens to be the Chairman of the Planning Commission for appropriate action at their end. 4. Put up this matter after nine weeks. Court Masters