The Supreme Court’s creche won’t open on time after all, announced the court’s registry in a notice, blaming a writ petition by advocate Anindita Pujari challenging the child care centre yesterday.
The Indian Express reported that Pujari was:
seeking direction to set up an “effective” creche that would really serve the purpose and would prevent exclusion of women from fully exercising their fundamental right to practise the profession of law. In deference to the long-pending demands, the SC had already established a creche in the new lawyers’ chamber building to be operational from July 1.
The petition also complained that setting up and managing the creche was done in an “ad hoc” manner without setting out experience requirements for the contractor or specifying the food and diet available to children.
It also wanted the upper age limit of children eligible for the creche raised from two to six years, and the total capacity increased beyond 10 children, which was “highly arbitrary, and discriminatory” and “violative of the principle of equality”.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising settled the petition, according to the Express.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I'd assume it's hardly big enough to potentially accommodate the thousands of advocates regularly working at the SC?
In a way, strategically it's a good idea to file it now - if they'd waited until it was already operating, making any changes and improvements would be extra hard. Now it's still possible to do it more easily...
It was a step in the positive direction. It was something that was gravely needed in the SC. Perhaps it was small, etc. but at least it was finally established. SC could always work on improving it gradually over time.
Honestly, I find that today lawyers just need a reason to pounce on anything, whether good or bad. Makes for good news and garners publicity. We just don't want to give anything a chance. Everything new must be "perfect" and that too in our personal understanding of the term "perfect".
Instead, perhaps help in finding a solution. Perhaps there was paucity of space, etc. Maybe the SCBA should step up and give one of their rooms to enable expansion or render their own services to aid and assist in the same.
A very real possibility if the SC were to acquire more space- Lawyers will crib that their space is being forcibly taken away...questions will be raised as to why so much space is needed, etc, etc.
Whatever happens, there will always be someone sitting pretty on the sidelines, with nothing to gain or lose, and filing such petitions or complaints. Its really quite sad.
First the demand for a creche for children under 2 would in any case be low, as many parents would hesitate to place a child that young in a creche. The demand would be substantial for toddlers and pre-schoolers, and for very young children between 3-6 who need child care after school. Many young lawyers and court staff with children between 2 and 6 would want to use such a creche.
& of course parents need to know the quality of service provided there, the credentials of staff, the quality of food etc.
Btw, the SC registry need not have postponed the opening seeing as there is no stay of any kind. The fact that this has been postponed only shows that the SC registry was hesitant to subject a 'running' creche to judicial scrutiny, probably because of quality reasons. The writ petition scared them.
Rooting for the petitioner and Indira Jaising.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first