Mumbai: State Government’s Mukhya Mantri Ladki Bahin Yojana (Chief Minister's Beloved Sister Scheme) is beneficiary and cannot be said to be discriminatory, the Bombay High Court said while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the scheme. The court also noted that the petitioner has to differentiate between a freebie and a social welfare scheme.
The court emphasised that the framing of policy was government's domain and is out of “judicial purview” unless there is violation of any fundamental rights.
The HC was hearing a PIL filed by city-based chartered accountant Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla seeking quashing the scheme contending it would put an additional burden on direct and indirect taxpayers / exchequers. The scheme promises transfer of Rs1,500 per month to all women between the age group of 21-60 years who are married, widowed, divorced, abandoned, or without support. The plea sought quashing of the July 9 Government Resolution (GR) regarding Mukhyamantri Yuva Karya Prashikshan Yojana, an internship scheme for unemployed youth in Maharashtra.
The plea contended that the scheme was politically motivated and was actually a “freebie” and was introduced by the government to “bribe voters”. Petitioner’s advocate Owais Pechkar submitted that the taxpayers' money should not be used for such schemes.
.jpg)
The court asked if it could fix the priorities of schemes for the government. It said that the petitioner has to differentiate between a freebie and a social welfare scheme. “Can we (court) fix priorities of the government? Do not invite us into the political thicket...although it may be tempting for us,” a division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said.
Noting it cannot ask the government to introduce one scheme or the other, the court said: “Every decision of the government of the day is political.” Highlighting that the scheme was discriminating amongst women, Pechkar said only those who earn less than Rs 2.5 lakh per year were eligible for the benefit under the scheme.
How could a woman earning Rs 2.5 lakh per annum be compared to one earning Rs 10 lakh per year, the judges asked. “This is a beneficiary scheme for some women. How is it discrimination? Some woman earning 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,” it added.
Further, the court emphasised that 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 the court interfere?” the court asked.
The judges said that even if personally speaking they agree with the petitioner, they 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,” it underlined.
When Pechkar argued that taxpayers' money could be used for infrastructure or roads instead of giving it away for free, the bench said that tax is a compulsory payment of money and has no quid pro quo. “What is a tax? What's the legal character? Tax is compulsory payment of money. There is no service. It does not have a quid pro quo. Therefore, this argument is not available to you. You do not have any say. This is a good speech on the road and not in court,” the court remarked.
