The Bombay High Court recently upheld the Maharashtra government’s ‘Ladki Bahin Yojana,’ asserting it as a non-discriminatory beneficiary scheme for women, thereby dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the initiative. This scheme, formally known as the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, offers financial assistance to women with an annual family income below Rs 2.5 lakh. The Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s stance on the separation of powers and the scope of judicial intervention in policy decisions.
Background and Objectives of the Scheme
The Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana was announced in the state budget as a social welfare measure aimed at providing financial support to women aged 21 to 65 years who are married, widowed, divorced, abandoned, or without support. Eligible beneficiaries receive Rs 1,500 monthly transferred directly to their bank accounts. The scheme is part of the government’s broader efforts to uplift economically disadvantaged women, ensuring they have financial stability and can contribute more effectively to their households and communities.
The PIL and the Petitioner’s Argument
The PIL was filed by Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, a chartered accountant based in Navi Mumbai, who contended that the scheme was politically motivated and equated to a “freebie” introduced to bribe voters ahead of the upcoming state assembly elections. Mulla’s advocate, Owais Pechkar, argued that taxpayer money should not be used for such schemes and that it imposed an additional burden on the state’s already strained finances. The petitioner claimed that the Rs 4,600 crore cost of the scheme would significantly impact the debt-ridden state, which has a debt of Rs 7.8 lakh crore.
Judicial Review and Policy Decisions
A division bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar dismissed the PIL, emphasizing that policy decisions fall outside the judicial purview unless there is a clear violation of fundamental rights. The bench reiterated that it is not the court’s role to interfere with government priorities or the allocation of budgetary resources, as these are legislative functions.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya questioned whether a woman earning Rs 2.5 lakh per annum could be compared to one earning Rs 10 lakh per year, highlighting that the scheme’s eligibility criteria are based on an intelligible differentia. The court stressed that equality must be pleaded among equals, and the differentiation made by the scheme is permissible as it targets women in economically disadvantaged positions.
Legal Grounds and Constitutional Provisions
The bench further elaborated on the legal character of taxes, stating that tax is a compulsory exaction of money and does not entail any service or quid pro quo. Therefore, taxpayers do not have the authority to dictate how tax revenues should be utilized. This principle underscores the separation between taxpayers’ contributions and governmental policy-making.
The Court also referenced Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the state to implement social welfare measures specifically for women. Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, supported this by citing Articles 38, 39, 41, 46, and 47 of the Constitution, which mandate the state to undertake social welfare initiatives. These provisions form the basis for the scheme, aligning it with the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Political Motivations and Electoral Implications
While the petitioner argued that the scheme was politically motivated, the Court maintained that political considerations are inherent in government decisions. Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked that every decision of the government is political, but that does not justify judicial intervention. The bench highlighted that the allocation for the scheme was made through a budgetary process, a legislative exercise that is beyond judicial scrutiny.
The petitioner’s claim that the scheme amounted to bribery or a gift to voters was also dismissed. The Court noted that social welfare measures targeting specific sections of society, particularly those in disadvantaged positions, are legitimate functions of the state. Such schemes, even if perceived as political, fulfill constitutional obligations towards social justice and equity.
Economic Impact and Budgetary Concerns
The petitioner expressed concerns about the financial burden of the scheme on Maharashtra’s economy. However, the Court clarified that arguments regarding budget allocations should be based on legal grounds rather than personal opinions on financial priorities. The judiciary’s role is not to assess the economic feasibility of government schemes but to ensure that they comply with legal and constitutional standards.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision to uphold the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana underscores the judiciary’s respect for the separation of powers and the autonomy of the legislative and executive branches in policy-making. The Court’s ruling affirms that social welfare schemes targeting economically disadvantaged groups are valid exercises of governmental authority, even if they entail significant budgetary allocations.
This case highlights the delicate balance between judicial oversight and policy decisions, reaffirming that the judiciary’s intervention is warranted only when there is a violation of fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. The Ladki Bahin Yojana, designed to support women from low-income families, aligns with the state’s constitutional obligations and reflects a commitment to social justice and gender equality.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s verdict reinforces the principle that social welfare measures, even if politically motivated, serve a greater purpose in addressing economic disparities and supporting vulnerable sections of society. The Ladki Bahin Yojana stands as a testament to Maharashtra’s efforts to empower women through financial assistance, contributing to their overall well-being and societal advancement.
