Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the Maharashtra Government’s star schemes, Laadki Bahin Yojana and Ladka Bhau Yojana, launched just before the State Elections. The court stated, “These are welfare schemes targeting certain sections of people who for some reason have been disadvantaged, and Article 15 permits the State to make beneficial schemes for them.”
The petition, filed by Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, a Chartered Accountant from Navi Mumbai, claimed that the schemes would financially cripple the State. Advocate Owais Pechkar, representing the petitioner, argued that while basic education for every child is not being provided, this “freebie” is discriminatory against taxpayers.
Today’s Rate
Saturday 23 Nov. 2024
The High Court bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar remarked, “This is what you think, and the government of the day thinks differently. Another government might say something else. That is called policy differences.”
“It is a policy decision, so we cannot interfere unless there is a violation of any fundamental rights,” emphasised the court. The bench dismissed the PIL without imposing any cost on the petitioner.
Under the scheme, announced in the State Budget, Rs 1,500 is proposed to be transferred monthly into the bank accounts of eligible women aged 21 to 65.
The PIL alleged the scheme was politically motivated and termed it a “freebie” aimed at “bribing voters”. The court, however, noted that it should not interfere in setting government priorities, stating, “Can we (the court) fix the priorities of the government? Do not invite us into the political thicket…although it may be tempting for us.”
“Every decision of the government of the day is political. Even if they build a canal, you will say the same,” the Chief Justice added. The bench clarified that it cannot dictate the introduction of government schemes.
Pechkar argued that the scheme discriminated against other women as only those earning less than Rs 2.5 lakh per year were eligible. However, the bench countered, “This is a beneficiary scheme for some women. How is it discriminatory? A woman earning Rs 10 lakh and another earning Rs 2.5 lakh do not fall under the same class or group. Equality has to be pleaded among equals. There is no discrimination.”
The court added that the scheme was introduced following the budgetary process. “Allocation of funds for the scheme has been made in a budget. Budget making is a legislative process. Can the court interfere?” the Chief Justice asked. “These are social welfare measures targeting certain sections of society in a disadvantageous position.”
On the taxpayers’ issue, the bench clarified, “Tax is a compulsory extraction of money. It does not have a quid pro quo element like fees. Just because you are a taxpayer does not entitle you to say this project should or shouldn’t happen.”
Pechkar had contended that such cash benefits were tantamount to bribery to voters from certain classes to favour particular candidates in upcoming elections. The court did not accept these arguments.
