Can't Expand Marriage Assistance Scheme To All Minimum Wage Earners, Court Cannot Substitute One Executive Policy For Another Under Article 226: Madras High Court
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme of the Tamil Nadu government cannot be extended to all persons earning minimum wages. Setting aside a single judge's direction that sought to broaden the scheme's eligibility criteria, the court found that such an expansion falls within the exclusive domain of executive function and cannot be ordered under Article 226 of the Constitution, as no law mandates extending the benefit beyond the scheme's prescribed income threshold.
The dispute arose from the rejection of a claim under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme. The scheme provided financial assistance to eligible women at the time of marriage, subject to the condition that the applicant’s income should not exceed Rs.6,000 per month or Rs.72,000 per year.
The respondent’s application was rejected on the basis of an income certificate issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, which recorded her annual income as Rs.1,08,000, equivalent to Rs.9,000 per month. The respondent contended that her actual income was only Rs.6,000 per month and sought relief against the rejection.
The appellants argued that the learned Single Judge exceeded the scope of the writ petition by directing that the scheme be extended to all persons earning minimum wages, despite the policy itself limiting eligibility to those earning below Rs.6,000 per month. The appellants maintained that the policy was not under challenge and that judicial intervention could not alter executive schemes framed under the State’s authority.
The Court recorded: “On a perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition and also the relief sought, undoubtedly, the scope of the writ petition was only whether the claim of the first respondent/ writ petitioner was rightly rejected or not.”
It stated: “The first respondent did not make any prayer, much less based on any ground that sweep of the scheme was required to be extended to a larger class of persons earning income more than Rs.6,000/-.” The Bench observed: “The first respondent’s claim that she was entitled to the benefit of the marriage assistance scheme was dependent on proof of the fact that she was earning Rs.6,000/- or less, per month.”
It further noted: “The income certificate of the first respondent which was issued by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, recorded her income as Rs.1,08,000/- per year, meaning thereby, the average income was Rs.9,000/- per month.” The Court stated: “On the face of such certificate, the first respondent, could get relief only in the event of being successful in challenging the correctness of the certificate.”
It added: “However, the learned Single Judge without declaring the income certificate illegal, proceeded to hold that the benefit of the scheme was required to be extended to a larger class of those who were earning income equivalent to or less than the then prevailing rates of minimum wages.”
The Bench recorded: “We are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge was not only beyond the scope of the writ petition but also amounts to substituting one executive policy for the other.”
It stated: “In the absence of there being any law of the land that the benefit of marriage assistance shall be extended to those who are earning minimum wages or less, extension of that benefit to a larger class is only in the realm of the executive function and could not be ordered in exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court observed: “It is well settled legal position requiring no authority to be referred to that there is a limited scope of judicial review in the matter of challenge to any executive policy.” It concluded: “We are informed that the marriage assistance policy in any case stands discontinued with effect from 02.08.2022.”
The Court directed: “In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Even though the scheme may have discontinued, we observe, if the first respondent is able to get the income certificate modified under a fresh inquiry by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar to prove that during the relevant period when the scheme was in force, her income was less than Rs.6,000/-, she would be entitled to the benefit of the policy.”
“The direction is confined only to the case of the first respondent/writ petitioner and shall not be treated as a general direction.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Raman, Advocate General Assisted By Mr. S. John J. Raja Singh, Additional Government Pleader
Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another
Case Number: WA No.3866 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Justice G. Arul Murugan
