Today, On 2nd August, A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against Maharashtra’s ‘Ladki Bahin’ scheme, but the High Court has refused an urgent hearing. The scheme has faced criticism, prompting legal action. Despite the urgency claimed by the petitioners, the court has decided to proceed with regular hearings.
Mumbai: A city-based chartered accountant filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court challenging the Maharashtra government‘s ‘Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana‘, a cash benefit scheme for women, arguing that it would impose an additional financial burden on taxpayers.
The petitioner seeks to annul the Government Resolution dated July 9, which introduced the scheme. According to this scheme, a monthly allowance of Rs 1,500 will be deposited into the bank accounts of women aged 21 to 65 whose family income is less than Rs 2.5 lakh.
Read Also: Maharashtra Court Acquitted a MSEB Peon in a Bribery Case
Announced in the state budget, the scheme aims to provide financial assistance to eligible women. The petitioner’s advocate, Owais Pechkar, requested an urgent hearing of the plea on Friday and sought an interim order to stay the scheme’s implementation, as the funds are scheduled to be disbursed to beneficiaries later this month.
However, a division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar declined the request for an urgent hearing.
Indicating that the matter would be heard in due course according to the court’s auto-listing system, Chief Justice Upadhyaya remarked,
“Do not make the system of auto-listing redundant. Urgency means demolition or if someone is going to be hanged,”
According to the High Court website, the PIL scheduled for a hearing on August 5. The petitioner, Naveed Abdul Saeed Mulla, argues that the government scheme imposes an additional financial burden on taxpayers, stating,
“Taxes are collected for infrastructure development, not for irrational cash schemes.”
Read Also: Bombay HC Challenges Maharashtra’s 10% Maratha Quota, Awaits State Response
Mulla further contends,
“Such cash benefit schemes are akin to bribery or gifts to voters of a certain class to secure votes for certain candidates from parties in the current coalition government contesting the upcoming state assembly elections.”
He asserts that the scheme violates the Representation of People Act, 1951, and amounts to “corrupt practice.”
The PIL claims the scheme, which would cost around Rs 4,600 crore, imposes a significant burden on Maharashtra, already burdened with a debt of Rs 7.8 lakh crore, and therefore should be quashed.