Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 1263
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Ahamed Junaid P S - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Women And Child Development, New Delhi – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1729 of 2026
Decided On : 18-08-2026
For the Petitioner: Adv. Ahamed Junaid P.S. (Party-In-Person)
For the Respondent: Alka Warrier, Cgc Sri.Anirudh Kadavil, Govt. Pleader
A conditional cash transfer scheme under the National Food Security Act may validly require vaccination as a condition for benefit, as it does not compel vaccination but merely sets eligibility criteria, and such a condition is not unconstitutional.
Headnote:(A) National Food Security Act, 2013 - Section 4 - Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana Rules, 2022 - Rules 2(f), 3 and 7 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 47 - Maternity benefit - Conditional cash transfer - Vaccination requirement for second girl child - Scheme is not an absolute right but conditional - Condition of vaccination is reasonable and not unconstitutional - State's duty to improve public health - Beneficiary must comply with eligibility conditions. (Paras 7-13)
(B) Maintainability - Writ petition by father - Not an intended beneficiary under scheme - No legally enforceable right - Petitioner cannot claim benefit on behalf of wife without her being party - Petition held not maintainable. (Para 7)
(C) Constitutional challenge - Right to bodily integrity under Article 21 - Previous Supreme Court decision on COVID-19 vaccination distinguished - Vaccination condition does not force vaccination but merely a condition for benefit - Non-compliance only results in loss of benefit, not coercion - Vaccine efficacy for infant health recognized - No ground to strike down condition. (Paras 16-20)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner's wife gave birth to their second child, a girl, on 03.09.2024. Under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana, an amount of Rs.6,000/- is provided to a lactating mother for the second girl child on condition that the child is vaccinated as per the Universal Immunization Programme. Petitioner did not vaccinate the child and sought a declaration that the vaccination condition is unconstitutional. He also sought direction to release the benefit without vaccination.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is not the intended beneficiary. On merits, the scheme is a conditional benefit programme; vaccination is a valid and reasonable condition intended to promote public health. There is no fundamental right to receive the scheme benefit. The condition does not compel vaccination but merely makes it a prerequisite for the benefit. The decision regarding COVID-19 vaccination is not applicable to routine childhood vaccinations. The court also noted that Article 47 of the Constitution imposes a duty on the State to improve public health, and encouraging vaccination is a policy decision that is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner is not the beneficiary under the scheme? 2. Whether the condition of vaccination for availing the scheme benefit is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a person seeking benefit under a conditional scheme must satisfy all conditions. The condition requiring vaccination of the child is a valid measure to promote public health and does not violate any fundamental right. The right to bodily integrity does not preclude the State from making vaccination a precondition for a statutory benefit, as long as there is no compulsion to vaccinate. The court distinguished the earlier Supreme Court judgment on COVID-19 vaccination and held that routine childhood vaccinations are based on scientific consensus and are not open to judicial review.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.
Petitioner seeks for a direction to sanction and release the benefit due to his wife as per the scheme called Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (for short, 'PMMVY'). Petitioner further seeks for a declaration that the administrative circulars/instructions compelling vaccination as a condition, for sanction of benefits due under the aforesaid scheme, is unconstitutional, arbitrary and ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner's wife had given birth to their second child on 03.09.2024. As per the scheme of PMMVY, an amount of Rs.6,000/- will be provided to a lactating mother for the second girl child, on condition that the child is vaccinated. Petitioner was informed that the benefit will be provided only on production of a vaccination certificate of the child. Since the insistence on such a medical procedure is an intrusion into his personal liberty, petitioner issued a legal notice and has thereafter approached this Court, seeking the reliefs mentioned earlier.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that the PMMVY scheme was launched with the object of implementing the maternity benefit provisions contained in section 4 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (for short 'NFSA, 2013'). The scheme is a conditional benefit programme applicable across the country, conferring a cash incentive of Rs.6,000/- to a lactating mother. The provision makes it clear that the entitlement to maternity benefit is not absolute or unqualified, but is expressly made subject to the scheme to be framed by the Central Government, which prescribes certain conditions, modalities and eligibility criteria. According to the first respondent, the writ petition itself is not maintainable since the petitioner is neither the intended beneficiary under the scheme nor a person upon whom any statutory right is conferred thus lacking in any enforceable legal right. It is further stated that the mandate of the Government through a pan-India implementation of PMMVY's, to provide partial compensation for wage loss, in the form of cash incentive, so as to enable a woman to take adequate rest before and after the delivery of her first child. It is also stated to be intended to promote positive behavioural change towards the girl child by providing additional cash incentive if the second child is a girl. Promotion of health-seeking behaviour is one of the core objectives of the PMMVY scheme. Respondent has pleaded that vaccination of infants is an essential public health measure, aimed at conferring early immunity, preventing serious infections and reducing vulnerability during the neonatal and infant stages. It was further stated that immunization has a direct and substantial bearing on reduction of infant mortality rate and hence the vaccination of the child has been incorporated as a mandatory condition for availing benefits under PMMVY scheme. The respondent further stated that the vaccination is a purely voluntary act to be undertaken as per the wishes of the parents or guardian and though there is no compulsion to vaccinate, non-fulfillment of the prescribed condition renders the beneficiary ineligible to claim the conditional cash transfer.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent stating that the PMMVY scheme is a centrally sponsored scheme of the Government of India intended for the nutritional support of pregnant and lactating mothers and for ensuring the well being of the new born child. It is also stated that as per the present guidelines, the funds cannot be granted to those beneficiaries who have not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the scheme.
5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating that schemes must be framed in consonance with the Constitution and it cannot override the constitutional mandates. Referring to the judgment in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India and Others [(2022) SCC Online SC 533], it is stated
