In a recent judgment by the Bombay high court, a PIL which demanded the annulment of the Mukhya Mantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana and Mukhya Mantri Yuva Karya Prashikshan Yojana was rejected.
Bombay High Court Rules on Government Welfare Schemes Amid Dispute Over Allocation of Tax Funds
For the unaware, under the Ladki Bahin scheme, Rs 1500 per month will be given to women between 21 and 60 years of age are married, widowed, divorced or without support.
Under the second scheme, a monthly stipend will be given to men in the 18-35 age bracked.
As per the petitioner’s Naveed Mulla’s advocate Owais Pechkar, the taxes paid should be used for constructing infrastructure, roads, highways, schools, etc,
The bench comprised of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, justice Milind Borkar.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya asked, “Can we under Article 226 fix the priorities of the govt?”.
The bench said that the money is allocated through the budgetary process.
While disagreeing that the Ladki Bahin scheme discriminates against women earning above Rs 2.5 lakh, he said that “Can such legislative process be subject to challenge?”.
The CJ said that “Equality has to be judged amongst equals. You can’t say persons earning up to Rs 2.5 lakh form the same class as persons earning more than that”.
Bombay High Court Defends Welfare Schemes, Rejects Claims of Misuse of Taxpayer Money
Pointing out to different welfare schemes, the judges said that the scheme targeting certain sections of people who, for some reason, have been at a disadvantage. Besides, Article 15 also enables making provision for many sections of society, including women.
Pechkar argued taxpayers’ money was being wasted. “If tomorrow the govt comes up with a scheme for providing free education, you’ll say it is a waste?” the CJ said.
In addition to this, HC said that how the money which is collected as tax is spend is the prerogative of the government and when the CJI was asked if the taxpayer has no say, then the CJI replied, “No. You don’t have any say.”
Highlighting the safeguards in place, Advocate general Birendra Saraf said that “to ensure really needy women benefit from the scheme”.
He said under the employment incentive scheme, the stipend is restricted to only 6 months. No sooner than a youth gets a job, the stipend will be discontinued. Saraf said these are schemes in furtherance of Directive Principles of State Policy.
