Equality Has To Be Pleaded Among Equals, It’s Not Discriminatory Rather Beneficial: Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Against 'Ladki Bahin Yojana' Scheme

A division 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, seeking to quash the scheme.

The bench said in what manner the government has to frame a scheme is out of the "judicial purview".

"It is a policy decision, so we cannot interfere unless there is violation of any fundamental rights," the Court said.

The bench dismissed the PIL but said it was not imposing any cost on the petitioner.

Under the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, which was announced in the state budget, Rs 1,500 is slated to be transferred into the bank accounts of eligible women in the age group of 21 to 65 years whose family income was less than Rs 2.5 lakh.

The PIL claimed the scheme was politically motivated and was actually 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.

The High Court bench, however, questioned if the court could fix the priorities of schemes for the government. The petitioner has to differentiate between a freebie and a social welfare scheme, it said.

"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 said.

"Every decision of the government of the day is political," he added. The bench said as a court it cannot ask the government to introduce one scheme or the other.

Pechkar claimed the scheme discriminated among women as only those who earned less than Rs 2.5 lakh per year were eligible for its benefit. To this, the HC questioned how could a woman earning Rs 2.5 lakh per annum be compared to one earning Rs 10 lakh per year.

"This is a beneficiary scheme for some women. How is it discrimination? Some woman earning Rs 10 lakh and another woman earning 2.5 lakh...do they fall under the same class or group? Equality has to be pleaded among equals. There is no discrimination," the High Court said.

Some women earning less than others do not fall under the same group, hence "this kind of discrimination is permissible," it said. The court said the scheme was introduced after a budgetary process.

"Allocation of funds for the scheme has been made in a budget. Budget-making is a legislative process. Can court interfere?" CJ Upadhyaya asked.

The bench said even if personally speaking it agrees with the petitioner, it cannot interfere legally.

"This is a welfare scheme targeting certain sections of society which for some reason is in a disadvantageous position. These are social welfare measures," the Court said.

The petition had claimed that through the impugned government scheme "an additional burden is put on direct and indirect taxpayers/exchequers as the taxes are collected for infrastructure development and not for irrational cash schemes."

"Such kind of cash benefit scheme was synonym to bribery or gift to voters of certain class to vote in favour of a certain candidate on behalf of parties in the present coalition government contesting in the upcoming state assembly elections," the petition said.

It claimed such scheme was against provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and amounted to "corrupt practice".

The PIL further claimed the scheme for women would cost around Rs 4,600 crore, and it is a "huge burden on the debt-ridden state of Maharashtra which is already in debt of Rs 7.8 lakh crore and therefore, same be quashed and set aside".