In a significant procedural challenge concerning the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court stepped in to examine allegations that the State had arbitrarily halted fresh registrations and imposed discriminatory age limits under the women centric welfare scheme. The petition, filed as a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioned whether executive policy choices on eligibility and continuation of benefits could withstand constitutional scrutiny under Article 14, raising larger questions about the limits of judicial review over welfare policies.
The controversy began when the State Government, after launching the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana on 01.03.2023 to promote women’s economic empowerment through monthly financial assistance, allegedly stopped fresh registrations from 20.08.2023 onward. The scheme initially promised Rs.1,000 per month, later enhanced to Rs.1,250, to eligible women domiciled in Madhya Pradesh, aged between 23 and 60 years, a threshold subsequently revised to 21–60 years. Counsel for the petitioner argued that closing registrations despite the scheme being ongoing was arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly when over 1.26 crore women were already beneficiaries. It was further contended that prescribing age criteria and denying benefits to similarly placed women violated Article 14.
The State, however, countered that the scheme was an executive policy decision and that none of the affected aspirants had individually approached the Court, arguing that such matters fell squarely within the policy discretion of the Government and were not amenable to interference in a PIL.
The Bench drew a clear line between judicial review and policy substitution. Relying on settled precedent, it reiterated that courts examine the legality of a policy, not its wisdom. The judges noted that interference is warranted only if a policy is unconstitutional, arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to statutory provisions. On facts, the Court found no such infirmity. It categorically observed that “in a policy decision, it is for the State to decide the date of implementation and its continuation,” emphasizing that fixation of commencement, closure, and eligibility criteria falls within the executive’s domain.
The age prescription of 21 to 60 years, the Court held, did not exhibit arbitrariness given the scheme’s objectives. It also declined to consider issues regarding enhancement of the benefit amount at the instance of a petitioner who was not a beneficiary. Consequently, finding no grounds to invoke PIL jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition without costs.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
