Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court today, while dismissing the PIL challenging the Ladki Bahin Yojana, stated that taxpayers have no say on how the government should spend the money collected through tax.

The division bench of the high court comprising Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a PIL filed by a Navi Mumbai-based CA challenging the scheme, which promises Rs. 1500 per month to all women between the age group of 21-60 years who are married, widowed, divorced, abandoned, or without support.

Advocate Owais Pechkar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that taxpayers' money could be used for infrastructure or roads instead of giving it away for free.

The bench responded and said, "What is a tax? What's the legal character? Tax is compulsory exaction 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 bench said.

Pechkar submitted that the finance department had expressed concern about the Ladki Behan Yojna in view of the state's financial condition. Despite this, the Cabinet passed it with a clear political motive, as the state assembly polls are due in October 2024.

The bench responded to Pechkar, stating that the allocation was made through a budgetary process, which is a legislative exercise, and the court could not intervene.

The bench also said that Article 15 of the Constitution allows the state to take social welfare measures for women. The bench noted that there was an intelligible differentia as only women below the income group of ₹2.5 lakhs were eligible.

Advocate General Birendra Saraf, appearing for the state government, submitted that the Directive Principles of State Policy require the state to take social measures.

He pointed out that the decision was taken in furtherance of Articles 38, 39, 41, 46, and 47 of the Constitution. He added that sufficient safeguards were in place to disqualify people who were eligible under some other scheme.

After hearing both parties, the bench dismissed the petition.

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