Perilous if courts test utility of welfare schemes: Madras HC

Chennai: It will be perilous if courts test the utility and beneficial effects of state policies, said Madras high court, setting aside a single judge order directing Tamil Nadu govt to provide 50,000 and 8g gold to a woman applicant under a now-repealed marriage assistance scheme. "Any policy formed by the govt is based on consideration of various factors and law, including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinions. It would be perilous if courts are asked to test the utility, beneficial effect, of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out in affidavits. The court should dissuade itself from entering into this fiefdom which belongs to the executive, said the first bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan on Friday. Under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar memorial marriage assistance scheme, women under eligible categories were entitled to 50,000 in cash and 8g gold for mangalsutra. A single judge directed the govt to provide it to an applicant, saying there was a six-year delay on the part of the govt in disposing of her application. Aggrieved, the govt filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the first bench said, "The govt has taken a policy decision to remodel the marriage assistance scheme into a higher education assurance scheme, considering the low enrolment ratio of girl students from govt schools and, according to the govt, such policy decision was taken in order to enhance women empowerment." The applicant has no records to show the restructuring of the old scheme was arbitrary. It is not as if the respondent's application was solely rejected on unreasonable grounds. No financial sanctions were given to all pending applications from 2018-2019 to 2021-2022. Therefore, no malafides or discrimination can be alleged, the court said. "In such circumstances, the single judge ought to have exercised judicial restraint, rather than extending the benefit of a non-extant policy to the respondent. We are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned single judge," the bench said.