Delhi High Court Scrutinizes Conditional Endorsements in Financial Assistance Scheme
On Monday, the Delhi High Court expressed concerns over the Delhi Lakshmi Yojana, suggesting that the scheme could be deemed arbitrary if it excludes any deserving woman due to the mandate of obtaining endorsements from local Members of Parliament (MP) or Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). The scheme, operated by the Delhi government, provides monthly financial assistance of ₹2,500 to eligible women.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia questioned the necessity of requiring such political endorsements. The panel remarked, “What is the objective you are trying to achieve by this? Suppose you don’t know any MP or MLA? If even one person is left out [because of the condition], then the scheme is arbitrary. There are thousands of ways you can identify people.”
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma represented the Delhi government, arguing that the policy decision was intended to prevent unwelcome individuals, or persona non grata, from benefiting from the scheme. He stated, “Your lordships may not agree with us, but we are entitled to say how the cabinet has seen it and what the position is in other States. This has not come out of the sky. There is something we want to place on record, we will do it.”
The court emphasized that the policy’s rationale must withstand the scrutiny of fundamental rights as outlined in the Constitution. “Wisdom of the government has to be tested on Part 3 [of the Constitution]. Every decision, Mr. Sharma, has to go the test of Part III (of the Constitution),” the Bench asserted.
ASG Sharma assured the court that the government would not evade the issue and committed to filing a detailed affidavit within 10 days to elucidate the rationale behind the endorsement requirement.
More Read
Public Interest Litigation Questions Endorsement Requirement
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) brought forth by Abhishek Dutt and another petitioner, challenging the endorsement requirement. The petitioners argued that similar schemes in other states do not impose such conditions.
In a previous hearing on August 19, the High Court had already raised these issues, instructing the government counsel to seek further directives on the matter.
