Judicial Review Limited In Policy Matters, MP High Court Says On Plea To Reopen Registrations For Ladli Behna Scheme
The petition, filed by one Paras Saklecha, sought directions to reopen registrations, revise age eligibility criteria, and extend benefits under the scheme providing monetary assistance to women domiciled in Madhya Pradesh.
Bhopal: Madhya Pradesh high court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging closure of fresh registrations in the MP government’s flagship women-empowerment scheme, Ladli Behna Yojana, holding that judicial review is limited in the policy matters.
A division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi, while rejecting the PIL, ruled that judicial review is limited in policy matters, and confined to examining legality and constitutionality, not desirability.
The petition, filed by one Paras Saklecha, sought directions to reopen registrations, revise age eligibility criteria, and extend benefits under the scheme providing monetary assistance to women domiciled in Madhya Pradesh.
“In a policy decision, it is for the state to decide the date of implementation and its continuation. The fixation of the date for commencement and its closure is within the domain of the State”, the bench held.
The Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana was implemented by the Madhya Pradesh government on March one, 2023 with an objective to empower women, domiciled in the state, by ensuring their economic independence.
A monthly incentive of Rs 1,000 each was transferred directly to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries, under the scheme.
The incentive was later increased to Rs 1,250 and further hiked to Rs 1,500.
The petition argued that the state’s decision to stop fresh registrations under the scheme with effect from August 20, 2023 was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when the policy is continuing and has over 1.26 crore beneficiaries.
It also challenged the fixation of minimum age of 21 years and maximum age of 60 years to be eligible for the scheme, as ‘unreasonable’.
Holding that the policy in question was not statutory but an executive policy of the state government, the court ruled that there is no arbitrariness found considering the nature of the scheme and the prescription of minimum and maximum age.