Assam Officials Get Contempt Notice for Not Releasing Funds for Trans Shelters

The bench had ordered the release of funds in a PIL filed by the All Assam Transgender Association.

Image used for representational purposes.

(Photo: iStock)

The Gauhati High Court, on Friday, 21 January, issued contempt notices to Assam government officials for not complying with its instructions to make arrangements for funds for three shelter homes catering to transgender people, Live Law reported.

A bench comprising Justice N Kotiswar Singh and Justice Malasri Nandi asked Partha Pratim Mazumdar, the secretary of the state's social welfare department, and Bibhash Modi, its director, to appear before the court and "explain as to why it should not proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971."

Only 3 Shelter Homes in Assam, All Starving for Funds

The bench had initially ordered the release of funds on 22 September, after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition was moved by the All Assam Transgender Association, according to the publication.

The petition reportedly pertained to the only three shelter homes in Assam for members of the transgender community, which were low on funds due to a monthly expense of around Rs 15 lakh each.

These shelters are located at Kamrup, Dhubri district, and Bongaigaon.

A letter issued by the director of social welfare on 20 January reportedly said that necessary action would only be taken after they were satisfied that the funds would be properly utilised.

The court remarked that the letter does not indicate the reasons for not complying with its previous orders to arrange for funds.

It noted that although the authorities would always "be at liberty to examine if the funds had been properly utilised or not and also take necessary action in the event of misappropriation of funds, these could not constitute grounds for not releasing funds," Live Law reported.

The bench reportedly observed that only Rs 1.6 crore had been issued by the authorities out of the Rs 2 crore sanctioned during the year 2019-20.

A certificate signed by various officials of the department also showed that there was no unspent balance at the end of the financial year, the court said.

The bench ruled that it was not satisfied with the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authorities about the reasons for not complying with its 22 September orders, according to the report.

The case will be heard next on 1 February.

(With inputs from Live Law.)