GG News Bureau
Mumbai, 5th August. The Bombay High Court on Monday upheld the Maharashtra government’s ‘Ladki Bahin Yojana’, ruling that it is a beneficiary scheme for women and does not constitute discrimination. The court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the scheme.
The PIL, filed by Chartered Accountant Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, sought to quash the scheme, arguing it was politically motivated and akin to a “freebie” aimed at bribing voters. The petitioner claimed that the scheme unfairly targeted certain women based on income levels and constituted a misuse of taxpayers’ money.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar ruled that the government’s policy decisions fall outside judicial purview unless they violate fundamental rights. “It is a policy decision, so we cannot interfere unless there is a violation of any fundamental rights,” the court stated.
Under the ‘Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana’, introduced in the state budget, eligible women aged 21 to 65 with a family income below Rs 2.5 lakh are set to receive Rs 1,500 in their bank accounts. The scheme aims to provide financial assistance to lower-income women.
The petitioner’s advocate, Owais Pechkar, argued that the scheme was a misuse of public funds and amounted to bribery. However, the court questioned whether it could dictate the priorities of government schemes. “Can we (court) fix priorities of the government? Do not invite us into the political thicket…although it may be tempting for us,” Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked.
The bench noted that the scheme was introduced following a budgetary process and questioned whether the court could interfere in legislative matters. “Allocation of funds for the scheme has been made in a budget. Budget-making is a legislative process. Can court interfere?” Chief Justice Upadhyaya asked.
The court also addressed the petitioner’s claim that the scheme discriminated among women based on income, stating, “Equality has to be pleaded among equals. There is no discrimination.” The bench explained that the scheme targeted specific sections of society in a disadvantageous position, describing it as a social welfare measure.
The PIL had also argued that the scheme would place an additional financial burden on Maharashtra, which is already heavily indebted. However, the court concluded that even if it personally disagreed with the scheme, it could not interfere legally.
Comments are closed.