Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Maharashtra Govt's 'Ladki Bahin' And 'Yuva Karya' Schemes

The Bombay High Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Maharashtra Government's 'Ladki Bahin Yojana' and 'Yuva Karya' schemes.

The Ladki Bahin scheme intends to give financial assistance of Rs. 1500 per month to women from economically weaker backgrounds. Whereas, the Yuva Karya scheme will provide stipends ranging from Ra. 6000 to Rs. 10000 per month to youth between 18 to 35 years enrolled in the State's technical training programs.

A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar while dismissing the petition remarked, “We are not moved by what you are saying. This is a speech for roads and not courts.”

The petitioner alleged political motives behind these schemes in view of the upcoming legislative assembly elections in October 2024. However, the Court asserted that the petitioner cannot argue beyond the contours of law. It remarked that “every decision of the government is political.”

The petitioner argued that the taxpayers' money is being wasted through these schemes and that their taxes should not be used for political motives. He contended that even the finance department of the Government raised concerns about the amount being allocated to the scheme.

The High Court noted that the amount for the schemes has been earmarked through a budgetary/legislative process.

It stated that 'tax' is the compulsory extraction of money by the Government. Paying taxes does not entitle an individual to direct how those funds are used, as the allocation of tax is at the government's discretion, the Court said.

It noted that 'quid pro quo' is only available when someone has paid 'fees', and not taxes.

The Court noted that it cannot intervene simply because a scheme may be more advantageous to some individuals. It observed policy decisions cannot be interfered with unless it interferes with Part III of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that the schemes were discriminatory, claiming that they discriminated against individuals based on different tax brackets. In response, the Court observed that Article 15 of the Constitution enables the State to make special provisions for disadvantaged sections of society. It noted that these schemes are a social welfare measure and are permitted by the Constitution.

Further, when the petitioner argued that the schemes constitute 'corrupt practices' under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Court clarified that Section 123 can be argued only in an election petition and cannot be addressed in this case.

When the petitioner requested the Court to direct the financial department for a reply, the Court stated that merely because different departments of the Government have different views, it cannot direct them to file a reply.

The Court thus dismissed the petition without any costs.

Case title: Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.