Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a petitioner challenging the implementation of the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023, a State-run welfare scheme aimed at women's empowerment and economic independence. The Court held that decisions regarding the commencement, continuation, and eligibility parameters of an executive welfare policy fall squarely within the domain of the State Government and are not open to judicial interference unless demonstrated to be unconstitutional, mala fide, or contrary to any statute, none of which were established in the present case.

The petition was filed in the nature of a pro bono publico under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the alleged illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory implementation of the Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023. The scheme was introduced on 01.03.2023 with the object of women empowerment, providing monthly financial assistance to eligible women domiciled in Madhya Pradesh. Initially fixed at Rs. 1,000 per month, the amount was later increased to Rs. 1,250 through administrative orders. Eligibility criteria included domicile in the State, marital status (including widow, divorced, and abandoned women), and age between 23 to 60 years, later revised to 21 to 60 years.

Also Read: Post-Bail Conduct Not Valid Consideration In Appeal Against Grant Of Bail; Supreme Court Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To Absconding Accused By MP High Court

The petitioner contended that stoppage of fresh registrations from 20.08.2023 was arbitrary and discriminatory, and that the fixation of minimum and maximum age limits violated Article 14. Directions were sought to reopen registrations, amend age criteria, and extend benefits. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the scheme was a policy decision not amenable to interference in a PIL.

The Court recorded that judicial review of policy decisions is limited. Referring to precedent, it observed that “the Court should not interfere with the economic and policy decision. The judicial review is limited to examining the legality not wisdom.” It further noted that “the Courts do not substitute their opinion for that of experts in policy matters.” The Bench stated that policy decisions can be interfered with only if “it is arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide.”

The Court reproduced the grounds on which a policy decision may be subject to judicial review, namely: “(a) If it is unconstitutional; (b) If it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy.”

Addressing the petitioner’s contention regarding stoppage of registrations, the Court observed, “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.” On the challenge to age criteria, the Court stated, “The fixation of the age of entitlement of policy prescribing minimum and maximum is also absolutely within the domain of the State Government.” It added, “Considering the nature of the scheme and the prescription of minimum and maximum age, we do not find any arbitrariness.”

Regarding the plea concerning non-enhancement of the scheme amount, the Court recorded that “we are not inclined to consider at the instance of the petitioner who is admittedly not an aspirant or beneficiary of the scheme and the same cannot be considered in a PIL.” Finally, it stated, “we do not find any case for entertaining a PIL.”

Also Read: SARFAESI Act Does Not Mandate Secured Creditor To Approach DM For Physical Possession: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes DRT/DRAT Restore-And-Refund Orders In Section 13(4) Possession And Auction Dispute

The Court held, “In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any case for entertaining a PIL. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Shri Sudeep Bhargava, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Pradyumna Kibe, Government Advocate

Case Title: Paras Saklecha Versus State of Madhya Pradesh Through Chief Secretary and Others

Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-IND:4254

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 49798 of 2025

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi