The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the state’s Priyadarshini Scheme, which offers complimentary bus travel for women and transgender individuals on ordinary Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) buses. The petitioners claimed that this initiative had resulted in overcrowding, potentially leading to accidents.
In the case of Akhila PR & Anr v. State of Kerala, the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, ruled that the PIL was speculative and appeared to aim at obstructing the government’s scheme. The Bench articulated, “This is a speculative litigation intended to derail the Priyadarshini Bus Scheme introduced by the Government of Kerala to provide free travel facilities to women. It is alleged that, owing to overcrowding, the vehicles operated under the scheme have met with accidents. This is not corroborated by any document.”
The court emphasized the absence of any tangible evidence from the petitioners to substantiate their claims linking overcrowding to bus accidents. “In the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegation that the bus accident occurred on account of overcrowding, we do not find any reason to entertain this Public Interest Litigation (PIL). This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the Government must ensure that the safety of passengers travelling in the buses is adequately safeguarded,” the judgment stated.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate KP Satheesan and Advocate Sabu Pullan. KSRTC’s representation was handled by Standing Counsel BS Swathi Kumar, while Senior Government Pleader OA Nuriya appeared for the State.
Notably, a similar petition challenging the Priyadarshini Scheme on the basis of alleged discrimination was dismissed by the same Division Bench earlier in June. This consistent judicial stance underscores the Kerala High Court’s support for the government’s efforts to provide free transportation options for women and transgender people.
More Read
The decision reinforces the court’s view that without substantial evidence, claims against public welfare schemes will not be entertained. This dismissal also highlights the judiciary’s caution against speculative litigation that lacks factual backing, thereby safeguarding government initiatives aimed at promoting inclusivity.
