2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54365

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Ahamed Junaid P S – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1729 OF 2026

A conditional government scheme does not confer an absolute right; beneficiaries must strictly comply with eligibility conditions. Prescribing vaccination as a condition is a reasonable public health measure and not unconstitutional.

Headnote:(A) National Food Security Act, 2013 - S.4, S.39 - Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana Rules, 2022 - R.2(f), R.3, R.7 - Maternity benefit - Conditional scheme - Vaccination as a condition - Constitution of India - Art.14, Art.21, Art.47 - Right to bodily integrity - Right to refuse medical treatment - Not absolute - Government's power to impose reasonable restrictions for public health. (Paras 8-14)

(B) Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana - Conditional benefit - A beneficiary must strictly satisfy the conditions for grant of benefit - No fundamental right to receive scheme benefit - Prescribing eligibility conditions not constitutionally invalid - Principle in Union of India v. Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. applied - "If benefit is sought under a Scheme, the party must fully comply with the provisions of the Scheme." (Paras 13-14)

(C) Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India - Distinguished - Judgment relates to COVID-19 emergency vaccination, not routine paediatric vaccination - Paediatric vaccination policy not open to judicial scrutiny - Based on global scientific consensus. (Paras 16-19)

(D) Vaccination - Universal Immunization Programme - Benefits far outweigh alleged side effects - Encouragement of vaccination is a valid policy measure - Not arbitrary or unconstitutional. (Paras 15, 20-21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, father of a child, sought a direction to release benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) for his wife, who gave birth to their second child (a girl) on 03.09.2024. The scheme provides Rs.6,000/- for a second girl child subject to vaccination. The child had not received the required vaccines. The petitioner challenged the vaccination condition as unconstitutional, arguing it intrudes into personal liberty and bodily autonomy.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner (father) is not the intended beneficiary under the scheme. Even on merits, the scheme is conditional; benefits are not absolute. The vaccination condition is a valid eligibility criterion, not a compulsion to vaccinate. The petitioner cannot claim benefit without fulfilling conditions. The PMMVY scheme promotes public health and is not unconstitutional.

Issues: Whether the vaccination condition under PMMVY scheme is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 47 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional benefit scheme like PMMVY does not confer an absolute right. A beneficiary must strictly comply with eligibility conditions. Prescribing vaccination as a condition is a reasonable public health measure, not violative of constitutional rights. The right to bodily integrity under Article 21 is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions for public health. The COVID-19 vaccination judgment does not apply to routine paediatric vaccination. Result : Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petitioner seeks release of pmmvy benefit for wife's second child; condition of vaccination challenged. (Para 2)
2. respondents submit pmmvy is a conditional scheme; vaccination is a mandatory condition for eligibility. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. writ not maintainable as petitioner not the beneficiary; even on merits, scheme is conditional. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. nfsa 2013 s.4 and pmmvy rules define conditional entitlement; vaccination condition is explicit. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. no fundamental right to scheme benefits; conditions must be strictly satisfied; vaccines not proven injurious. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. jacob puliyel case distinguished; routine paediatric vaccination not covered; policy not open to scrutiny. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. vaccination promotion is valid policy; cannot approbate and reprobate; petition dismissed. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

1.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, no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document