ORDER :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

Heard on I.A No.846/2026, which is an application for ignoring defects.

2. Office objection regarding legible copies is exempted as they were not referred in the petition.

3. The present petition is filed in the nature of pro bono publico invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory implementation of Mukhyamantri Ladli Behna Yojana, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Policy of 2023’).

4. The policy of 2023 was introduced by the respondents on 01.03.2023 with an object of women empowerment by improving health and nutrition of women and to promote their economic independence, and strengthening their role in family decisions. As per clause 6.1 of the policy of 2023, the respondents agreed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to every woman domiciled within the State of Madhya Pradesh in their bank accounts, who has registered herself in accordance with the norms of the policy of 2023. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- was further increased by the respondents to Rs. 1,250/- per month by administrative orders. The eligibility criteria for being beneficiary of the policy of 2023 has been provided under clause 3 of the said policy; according to which a woman should be domiciled within the State of Madhya Pradesh, she must be a married woman (including widow, divorced and abandoned women) and she must belong to the age group between 23 to 60 years on the date of application. The respondent vide order dated 19.07.2023 changed the aforesaid age-related eligibility criteria by decreasing the age of women from 23 years to 21 years, and therefore, the women belonging to the age group between 21 years to 60 years on the date of application are now eligible to get benefit of the policy of 2023.

5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the stoppage of fresh registrations under the scheme of 2023 by the respondents w.e.f 20/8/2023 despite policy being of continuing nature, is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He argued that the scheme was introduced to promote women empowerment and economic independence and has over 1.26 crore beneficiaries. However, the respondents have unlawfully closed both online and offline registrations for newly eligible women without any statutory backing. He vehemently argued that denial of benefit to the similarly placed women is arbitrary and amounts to hostile discrimination. He further argued that fixation of minimum age of 21 years and maximum age of 60 years under clause 3.3 of the Policy, 2023 is arbitrary and unreasonable and denial of benefits to the other eligible women is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a direction has been sought to reopen registration, amend the age of criteria and extending the benefits of the scheme to all women during subsistence of policy.

6. On being confronted with the question that whether policy of the State Government can be examined in a public interest litigation. He argued that the said judicial review is permissible. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of Delhi Development Authority & Anr. Vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee SFS Flats & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 672. He referred para 65 of the said judgment. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed in regard to Citizenship Act, 1955 Section 6(A), IN RE reported in (2024) 16 SCC 105.

7. Counsel for the State argued that it is a policy decision of the State Government and none of the aspirants claiming benefit under the scheme has come before this Court challenging the said policy decision and, therefore, the policy cannot be examined in a public interest litigation. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in the case of Vyom Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in CWP No.16520-2023 (O&M) against which an SLP has also been dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties