The state may exercise its power under Article 15(3) to create special provisions in favor of women and transgender persons, and such policy decisions aimed at promoting socio-economic empowerment are not subject to judicial interference unless proven manifestly unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

Petitioner, who claims to be a public-spirited citizen and a taxpayer has filed this Public Interest Litigation inter alia seeking to quash Exhibit P1 Government Order and to declare that the free bus travel in the ordinary KSRTC buses to all women and transgender persons implemented across the State under the “Priyadarshini Scheme” vide the said G.O. be discontinued.

2. Exhibit P1 G.O. dated 11.06.2026, has already been implemented by the 1st respondent from 15.06.2026 onwards. The petitioner contends that the said scheme for free travel in ordinary KSRTC buses for women and transgender persons has been put into effect by the Government without conducting any study and without any material to show that any disadvantage was being suffered by the class of people to whom the said scheme is intended to confer benefit. It is alleged that no policy study had been conducted, no assessment undertaken, and no empirical data had been gathered identifying the specific disadvantage sought to be remedied by extending such privilege exclusively to women and transgender people. The relevant scheme, it is submitted, had been born in an election manifesto, had been announced immediately after the swearing-in ceremony, and had been formalised by Exhibit P1 G.O., all of which are without sufficient policy reasoning and hence cannot claim the protection of any constitutional provision. The W.P.(PIL) thus inter alia seeks to quash Exhibit P1 G.O. and to direct that the free bus travel, now extended to a select few of the citizens, shall be put on hold.

3. We have heard Sri.M.P.Shameem Ahamed, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.Jaju Babu, the learned Advocate General for the 1st respondent. Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, Advocate, appears for the 2nd respondent, KSRTC.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned G.O. is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 to the extent it envisages free bus travel to all women regardless of income, residence or any other criteria. The classification created under the impugned order, it is submitted, is over-inclusive in so far as it extends benefits to all women irrespective of their economic, social or educational status. According to the learned counsel, there is a total absence of rational nexus between the beneficiary class and the purported objective of promoting the economic and social advancement of women within the State.

5. The learned counsel proceeds to illustrate the impact of the above-said non-conformity through the example of a woman tourist visiting Kerala and submits that such a female tourist from another State, who has no connection to Kerala's economic or social welfare objectives, would stand to benefit from the subsidising of her travel vide Exhibit P1 G.O. This, according to the learned counsel, is despite the fact that the privilege availed by her does nothing to advance State’s women empowerment, while the financial burden would fall entirely on State’s taxpayers. The benefit, according to the learned counsel, would thus accrue to a non-resident with no nexus to the stated objective. He submits that this overbreadth conclusively demonstrates that the scheme is not directed at any specific welfare objective. The learned counsel also put forth the analogy of a wealthy woman utilising free travel to buttress the contention that the scheme lacks direction and purpose.

6. As regards other privileges exclusively conferred upon women and enjoyed by them, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempts to draw a distinction between such benefits and those conferred under Exhibit P1 G.O. It is submitted that other privileges that could be extended to women, like reservation of seats in buses, free travel to female students, concessional travel to women below the poverty line, travel for pregnant and nursing mothers, safe transport for women in night shift employment etc., stand on a different footing as the spec