The court emphasized that no one has a right to get a waiver of the loan availed by them and that a line has to be drawn while framing a policy. It also highlighted that the distinction based on landholding is not per se discriminatory and refused to interfere with the policy, stating that it was framed in public interest and based on valid and time-honored distinctions.

1. Heard Mr.R.Kaaruppan, the petitioner appearing in person in connection with his petition, which has been filed in public interest. In this petition, the prayer is for a direction upon the first and second respondents to extend the crop loan waiver scheme to all the farmers throughout India, irrespective of the area of lands held by them.

2. The main thrust in the argument is that the Government of India has announced a waiver of Rs.71,360 Crores of loan taken by the farmers. Various newspaper reports and materials from the internet have been annexed to the writ petition to show that the policy which has been formulated in working out this aforesaid loan waiver scheme benefits only farmers having land upto 5 acres. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid scheme, therefore, is discriminatory inasmuch as it excludes farmers having more than five acres of land from the benefit of the said scheme. The petitioner further submits that despite the announcement of such waiver scheme, suicides by farmers go on unabated.

3. It is contended that in the matter of distribution of its largesse, the Government cannot discriminate. And any scheme involving outlay of public funds is judicially reviewable and this Court can intervene and pass appropriate orders in order to remove the vice of discrimination, which according to the petitioner, is writ large over the scheme. The petitioner submits that the discrimination inbuilt in the scheme does not rest on any intelligible nexus between the discrimination made and the purpose, if any, which is sought to be achieved by such discrimination. In other words, the petitioner submits that if the purpose of the said scheme is to give relief to the farmers, big farmers having land more than five acres are also entitled to the relief and cannot be left out of the scheme.

4. Raising the aforesaid contention, the petitioner submits that the Court should examine this scheme judicially and call upon the first and second respondents to answer this charge of discrimination.

5. The Court has considered the submission made by the learned counsel, who is appearing in person. On a prima facie consideration of the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that no one has a right to get a waiver of the loan which he takes. When loan is taken either from a nationalized bank or a co-operative society, whether by a farmer or an artisan or a person who is a labourer or a person who is an unemployed young man, he takes such loan on the basis that he will repay it. Repayment of loans taken from public financial institutions is also in public interest since public money is involved. In the writ petition itself, there are averments that the farmers taking loan have a pious obligation to pay it back. Therefore, the writ petitioner himself admitted that there is no right in any one to get waiver in the matter of repayment of loan. Various statutes have been enacted like the Revenue Recovery Act, the Debt Relief Act, the Cooperative Societies Act, and subsequently, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, to control the grant of loan and ensure repayment thereof.

6. Despite the aforesaid statutory provisions, which have all been found valid by Courts, the Government of India in exercise of its sovereign power formulated the aforesaid loan waiver scheme by way of an exemption from the statutory provision as a policy decision.

7. It is not disputed even by the petitioner that the loan waiver scheme has been sanctioned by the Parliament. Similar policies have also been adopted by some State Governments.

8. Such policies are framed by the appropriate government in larger public interest and as a welfare measure and possibly to tide over any emergent situation. In such cases, it is difficult for a Court to interfere primarily in view of the fact that formulation of such policies perta