High Court dismisses plea against Maharashtra’s Ladki Bahan, Ladka Bhau projects

The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging Maharashtra government’s flagship schemes Ladki Bahin Yojana and Ladka Bhau Yojanalaunched just before the regional elections. The Court said: “These are social assistance programmes targeting certain categories of people who, for one reason or another, have been disadvantaged, and Article 15 allows the State to set up programmes beneficial to them.”

The petition, filed by Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, a chartered accountant from Navi Mumbai, claims that these projects will financially cripple the state. Advocate Owais Pechkar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that even if basic education is not provided to all children, this “free” provision is discriminatory against taxpayers.

Supreme Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar observed: “That is what you think, and the present government thinks differently. Another government might say something else. That is called difference of views.”

“This is a political decision, so we cannot interfere unless there is a violation of a fundamental right,” the court stressed. The court dismissed the PIL without imposing any costs on the petitioner.

Under the scheme, announced in the state budget, it is proposed to transfer Rs 1,500 every month to the bank accounts of eligible women aged 21 to 65 years.

The PIL alleged that the project was politically motivated and called it a “gift” meant to “bribe voters”. The court, however, noted that it should not interfere in setting the government’s priorities, saying: “Can we (the court) set the priorities of the government? Do not invite us into the political thicket…even if it may be tempting for us.”

“Every decision of the present government is political. Even if they build a canal, you will say the same thing,” the chief justice added. The court clarified that it could not dictate the implementation of government programs.

Pechkar argued that the scheme was discriminatory against other women as only those earning less than Rs 2.5 lakhs per annum were eligible for it. However, the court retorted: “This is a scheme meant for certain women. How is it discriminatory? A woman earning Rs 10 lakhs and another earning Rs 2.5 lakhs are not in the same class or group. Equality has to be argued between equals. There is no discrimination.”

The court added that the project was set up following the budgetary process. “The allocation of funds for the project was decided through a budget. Budgeting is a legislative process. Can the court intervene?” the chief justice asked. “These are welfare measures targeting certain underprivileged sections of society.”

On the taxpayer issue, the court clarified: “Taxation is a compulsory extraction of money. There is no quid pro quo element such as fees. Just because you are a taxpayer does not mean you have the right to decide whether a project should be carried out or not.”

Pechkar had argued that these cash benefits amounted to bribing voters from certain social classes to favour certain candidates in the upcoming elections. The court did not accept these arguments.