The Bombay High Court on Monday ruled that the Maharashtra government’s ‘Ladki Bahin Yojana’ is a beneficiary scheme for women and cannot be considered discriminatory.
A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by city-based Chartered Accountant Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, who sought to quash the scheme.
The bench stated that determining the manner in which the government frames a scheme is outside the “judicial purview.”
“It is a policy decision, so we cannot interfere unless there is a violation of any fundamental rights,” the court said.
While dismissing the PIL, the bench decided not to impose any costs on the petitioner.
Under the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, announced in the state budget, Rs 1,500 is set to be transferred into the bank accounts of eligible women aged 21 to 65 years, provided their family income is less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
The PIL claimed that the scheme was politically motivated and constituted a “freebie,” introduced by the government to “bribe voters.”
The petitioner’s advocate, Owais Pechkar, argued that taxpayers’ money should not be used for such schemes.
However, the HC bench questioned whether it could determine the priorities of government schemes.
The court stated that the petitioner needed to distinguish between a freebie and a social welfare scheme.
“Can we (court) fix priorities of the government? Do not invite us into the political thicket…although it may be tempting for us,” CJ Upadhyaya remarked.
“Every decision of the government of the day is political,” he added.
The bench emphasized that as a court, it cannot mandate the government to introduce specific schemes.
Pechkar argued that the scheme discriminated among women by offering benefits only to those with an income below Rs 2.5 lakh per year.
In response, the HC questioned how a woman earning Rs 2.5 lakh annually could be compared to one earning Rs 10 lakh per year.
“This is a beneficiary scheme for some women. How is this discrimination? A woman earning Rs 10 lakh and another earning Rs 2.5 lakh… do they fall under the same class or group? Equality must be pleaded among equals. There is no discrimination,” the HC stated.
The court noted that women with different income levels do not fall into the same group, and “this kind of discrimination is permissible.”
The court also pointed out that the scheme was introduced following a budgetary process.
“Allocation of funds for the scheme has been made in a budget. Budget-making is a legislative process. Can the court interfere?” Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked.
The bench said that even if it personally agreed with the petitioner, it could not interfere legally.
“This is a welfare scheme targeting certain sections of society that are in a disadvantageous position. These are social welfare measures,” the court explained.
The petition had argued that the government scheme imposed “an additional burden on direct and indirect taxpayers/exchequers as the taxes are collected for infrastructure development and not for irrational cash schemes.”
The petition claimed that such a cash benefit scheme was akin to bribery or a gift to voters, aimed at securing votes for certain candidates in the upcoming state assembly elections.
It also alleged that the scheme violated provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and amounted to “corrupt practice.”
Furthermore, the PIL estimated that the scheme would cost around Rs 4,600 crore and argued that it imposed a “huge burden” on the debt-ridden state of Maharashtra, which is already in debt to the tune of Rs 7.8 lakh crore. The petition sought that the scheme be quashed and set aside.
