Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay HighCourt, comprising Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Abhay Mantri, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra Government’s distribution of freebies, including the ‘Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana,’ contending that these freebies, particularly during an Assembly election year, constitute an irrational misappropriation of taxpayer funds and undermine fiscal responsibility and democratic principles.
The PIL is filed by social activist Anil Wadpalliwar, represented by Adv Shreerang Bhandarkar. The petitioner has approached the court to address what he claims are irrational and indiscriminate distribution practices of state largesse by the Maharashtra Government. Wadpalliwar argued that these policies, often termed “populous schemes,” are designed to sway voter sentiment in the lead-up to elections rather than addressing the state’s genuine developmental needs.
The petitioner alleged that the state’s practice of distributing freebies, such as cash handouts, subsidies, and free goods, undermines democratic principles and contributes to fiscal irresponsibility. He argued that this practice complicates Maharashtra’s financial strain which could lead to neglect in critical sectors like health and education. The petition also underlined major delays in fund disbursement for flood repairs and infrastructure projects.
For example, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) is awaiting substantial funds for flood repairs, with only a fraction of the allocated amount released so far. Additional requests for urgent repairs remain unmet, and the delay in fund disbursement is causing strain on contractors and civic services. Wadpalliwar pointed to the State’s growing fiscal deficit and public debt, with the fiscal deficit expected to exceed 4 percent of the Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP).
He contended that the government’s focus on freebies diverts crucial funds away from essential public services and infrastructure, affecting healthcare, education, and public welfare. The petition highlighted that the timing and scale of the government’s publicity campaigns and schemes may be aimed at electoral gains rather than genuine public welfare. It criticised the allocation of substantial funds formed in campaigns and the appointment of scheme ambassadors, which could be perceived as pre-election tactics.
The court directed Adv Bhandarkar to amend the petition with focus on Financial Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005. The Judges stressed the need to detail how State’s financial practices may violate principles of fiscal responsibility. The matter has been scheduled for follow-up hearing in two weeks.
