'Matter Of Policy': Allahabad HC Disposes PIL To Extend Benefit Of Schemes Meant For SC-STs/OBCs To BPL Card Holders
The Allahabad High Court last week disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that sought to extend the benefits of schemes exclusively meant for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Minorities to Below Poverty Line (BPL) cardholders of all other communities/castes.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, emphasising the limits of judicial review in policy matters, concluded that such decisions fall within the purview of the legislative and executive branches of government.
“Howsoever avowed the objective behind filing of this petition, the issues raise fall in the domain of the Executive/ Legislatiure as they inovlve policy matters having far reaching consequences, threfore, the petitioners should pursue the same before the Executive/Legislature. We find ourselves handicapped considering the limits of the judicial review by Constitutional Courts in such matters,” the division bench noted.
In view of the aforementioned remark, the Court gave petitioners (Satya Narain Shukla and another) the liberty to make representations to the Central/State Government, espousing their cause with relevant data and materials.
The Court added that their representation may assist the concerned Government in taking an objective view on the issues raised in the present petition or in canvassing them before the elected representatives of the Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be.
The PIL plea in brief
The petitioners argued that denying state assistance from schemes designed for SCs, STs, OBCs, and minorities to poor individuals from the general category who meet the same eligibility criteria violates fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
They also claimed this denial contradicts the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Articles 37 and 38. Therefore, they urged and prayed that the benefits of these schemes be extended to all below-the-poverty line (BPL) individuals, regardless of community or caste, who meet the eligibility criteria.
On the other hand, the standing counsel appearing for the state government argued that the PIL plea is not maintainable given the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v/s Satpal Saini, in which the court held that the Courts could not direct the legislature to legislate/enact a law.
It was submitted that the State Government is continuously working for the welfare of the state's citizens. Various beneficiary schemes are being operated to uplift people from all sections of society (including socially, economically, and educationally backward classes).
The counsel for respondent No.4/NITI Ayog also submitted that the Government of India has several schemes for the economically weaker sections of society, irrespective of caste or creed, to benefit the poor.
It was further argued that Articles 15 (6) and 16(5) were incorporated into the Constitution of India vide the 103rd amendment published on 12.01.2019.
It was also argued that the benefit of reservation to the economically weaker sections of Citizens has also been extended to admission in educational institutions, including private educational institutions, and matters of public employment.
High Court's observations
Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Court noted that the PIL plea filed by the petitioners argued that the provisions of all State assistance should be based on economic criteria only instead of caste/community.
However, the Court observed that the petitioners did not specify which existing schemes for SCs, STs, OBCs, and minorities they wanted to be extended to below-poverty line (BPL) individuals.
The Court added that the petitioners also failed to provide evidence on how these schemes would benefit BPL individuals over the targeted groups. Additionally, the Court emphasised that the petition sought a mandamus for policy-making, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Executive and Legislature, not the judiciary.
Importantly, the Court stressed that, given the Supreme Court's consistent view on this issue, there can be no doubt that seeking changes in an existing policy or law of beneficiary-oriented scheme lies within the exclusive domain of the Executive or the Legislature and is a matter of policy.
Given this, and granting the petitioners liberty to make representations to the Central/State Government espousing their cause, the Court disposed of the PIL plea.
Appearances
Counsel for Petitioner: S. N. Shukla In Person, G.N. Pandey- In Person
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G., Sudhanshu Chauhan
Case title - Satya Narain Shukla And Anr. vs. State Of U.P. Thru.Chief Secy. And Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 423