Back
Questions MP MLA Endorsement for Lakshmi Yojana Benefits to Women
The on Wednesday raised serious concerns over a requirement that women seeking benefits under the Delhi Lakshmi Yojana must obtain an endorsement from their local Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that such a condition could not be justified when eligibility could be verified through other documents, and noted that the scheme’s own eligibility criteria do not mention any such endorsement.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former councillor Abhishek Dutt and sitting councillor Vedpal Sheetal Chaudhary, who challenged several conditions of the scheme, including the mandatory MP/MLA endorsement. The bench directed the ’s counsel to seek instructions on the issue and listed the matter for further hearing on .
Court Raises Concerns Over Political Endorsement Requirement
“We can’t approve of it,” the bench told the government counsel, emphasizing that the requirement appeared to make a woman’s application dependent on the opinion of a political representative rather than . “Why are you asking them to approach the MLA or the MP?” the court questioned, pointing out that the scheme’s Clause 4, which lists eligibility conditions, does not require any letter from an MP or MLA.
The court further observed that there are “better ways to identify eligibility” and that the government could request various documents to verify whether an applicant meets the conditions. “It is quite possible that a particular woman may or may not be able to get the endorsement from the MP/MLA of her constituency,” the bench noted, underscoring the potential for arbitrary denial of benefits.
Scheme’s Eligibility Criteria Does Not Mention MP/MLA Letter
The Delhi Lakshmi Yojana, approved by the in with an allocation of ₹5,100 crore, provides financial assistance of ₹2,500 per month to eligible women aged 21 to 60 years. Eligibility is based on an annual family income of up to ₹2.5 lakh, along with other conditions such as a 10-year continuous residence in Delhi, registered voter status, and exclusions for families with more than three living children, annual electricity consumption above 2,400 units, ownership of a four-wheeler, or a member in government service.
Despite these detailed criteria, the online registration portal launched on made submission of a recommendation or endorsement letter from the local MP or MLA a compulsory requirement. The petitioners argued that this condition gave political representatives “” and effectively turned a into an instrument of . They also highlighted the absence of any if an MP or MLA declined to provide the endorsement.
Petitioners Allege
The PIL contends that the mandatory endorsement condition is not mentioned in the original Cabinet decision approving the scheme, which was previously known as the Mahila Samriddhi Yojana. The petitioners assert that the requirement allows MPs and MLAs to exercise subjective control over who receives benefits, undermining the scheme’s objective of providing financial assistance to women without discrimination.
The court’s view aligned with these concerns. “We are of the view that in assessing as to whether a woman fulfils the criteria, various documents can be asked for. It is possible that a woman may or may not get the endorsement of the MP/MLA of her constituency. In any case, the scheme does not mention any requirement of an endorsement letter,” the bench observed.
Broader Challenges to Scheme Conditions
Beyond the endorsement requirement, the petition challenges other conditions that petitioners argue are arbitrary and disproportionately restrictive. These include the 10-year continuous residency requirement—which could exclude migrants—the limitation of benefits to the eldest eligible woman in a household, and disqualification based on criminal antecedents of any family member. The petitioners have sought directions for the formulation of objective, transparent, and non-arbitrary guidelines for verifying eligibility and disbursing financial assistance, without political interference or unguided executive discretion.
The court did not rule on these broader challenges during the hearing, focusing instead on the endorsement issue. However, the bench’s observations suggest that the scheme’s conditions will face close judicial scrutiny, particularly those that appear to vest discretionary power in political representatives without clear legal backing.
Legal Implications: and
The case raises significant constitutional questions under , which guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action. By making benefits contingent on an MP or MLA’s endorsement, the scheme arguably introduces an element of personal discretion that is not guided by any , potentially violating the right to equal treatment. The has consistently held that welfare schemes must be administered in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner.
For legal practitioners, this case underscores the importance of carefully scrutinizing eligibility conditions in government schemes for potential . The court’s willingness to intervene at the preliminary stage indicates a robust approach to ensuring that welfare entitlements do not become vehicles for political influence. If the court ultimately strikes down the endorsement requirement, it could set a precedent for challenges to similar conditions in other state and central schemes.
What Lies Ahead
The has been directed to obtain instructions and is expected to clarify its position on the endorsement requirement when the matter is next heard on August 24. The court may also address the other contested conditions if the government fails to provide a satisfactory rationale. For now, the high court’s strong view sends a clear message: welfare benefits must be distributed based on objective eligibility, not .
As the case progresses, legal professionals and policy makers will be watching closely. The outcome could influence the design of similar cash transfer programs across the country, reaffirming the principle that access to social welfare should be a matter of right, not discretion.
