Back
Upholds Vaccination Requirement for ₹6,000 PMMVY Benefit for Second Girl Child
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the has upheld the condition requiring vaccination of the second girl child as a prerequisite for lactating mothers to receive the ₹6,000 incentive under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY). Dismissing a filed by a father challenging the condition as unconstitutional, the court ruled that the scheme is conditional and does not confer an absolute right.
A Father's Challenge
The petitioner, , approached the High Court after his wife gave birth to their second girl child on . Under the PMMVY scheme, the mother was entitled to ₹6,000, but only upon producing a vaccination certificate for the child. Junaid, appearing in person, argued that this requirement indirectly coerced parents to vaccinate their children, infringing on their under and violating the under . He also invoked , contending that if vaccines are potentially injurious, the State cannot mandate them as a condition for welfare benefits.
Preliminary Hurdle:
Before addressing the merits, the court raised a preliminary objection. Noting that the PMMVY benefit is intended for the lactating mother and is directly transferred to her bank account, Justice Thomas observed that the petitioner—the father—had no legally
to claim the benefit.
"The
itself is not maintainable,"
the court stated. However, recognizing the constitutional questions raised, it proceeded to examine the challenge on its merits.
Conditional Benefit, Not a
The court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework.
, provides for maternity benefits
"subject to such schemes as may be framed by the Central Government."
The
, specifically
, make the ₹6,000 benefit for a second girl child conditional upon the child having received all due vaccines within fourteen weeks of birth as per the Universal Immunization Programme.
"This is a
,"
the court emphasized.
"The PMMVY scheme nowhere states that it is an absolute right conferred upon every lactating mother. There is no
for any person to receive the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme, and therefore, prescribing eligibility conditions cannot be regarded as
."
The court applied the principle from Union of India v. Charak Pharmaceuticals (India) Ltd. (2003) 11 SCC 689, where the held that if a party seeks benefit under a scheme, they must fully comply with its provisions.
Distinguishing Jacob Puliyel
The petitioner heavily relied on the 's decision in Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India (2022), which discussed and the during the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Thomas found this reliance "misplaced," noting that the COVID-19 context involved emergency vaccines and cannot be used as a broad precedent for all routine vaccinations.
The court quoted the
's own observations in
Jacob Puliyel
that pediatric vaccinations in India are
"in tune with global scientific consensus and expert bodies like the
, the
, and the
"
and that courts cannot second-guess expert opinion on such policy decisions.
Public Health Over Private Preference
Addressing the petitioner's
argument, the court held that encouraging vaccination aligns with the State's duty to improve public health.
"Even if it is assumed that immunization has side effects, the health benefits of immunisation far outweigh the side effects,"
the court observed.
"Measures initiated by the Government to promote and encourage such vaccination cannot be said to be unconstitutional or arbitrary."
The Universal Immunization Programme, the court noted, provides free vaccination against twelve vaccine-preventable diseases and is one of the largest public health programs globally. The condition under PMMVY is a rational measure to promote timely immunization, closely connected to the scheme's objective of improving maternal and child health.
The Verdict: Petition Dismissed
Concluding that the petitioner cannot
"
,"
Justice Thomas dismissed the
. The court made clear that parents remain free to choose whether to vaccinate their child, but non-fulfillment of the condition means the benefit is not payable.
The judgment reinforces the principle that conditional welfare benefits do not give rise to fundamental rights claims, and that public health considerations can legitimately shape eligibility criteria for government schemes. It also underscores the judiciary's deference to expert-driven health policies, particularly in matters of childhood immunization.
Key Observations from the Judgment:
-
"The PMMVY scheme nowhere states that it is an absolute right conferred upon every lactating mother. There is no
for any person to receive the benefit due under the PMMVY scheme."
-
"Even if it is assumed that immunization has side effects, the health benefits of immunisation far outweigh the side effects."
-
"The efficiency and benefit of such paediatric vaccinations are not open for
."
-
"If the petitioner wants to avail the benefit under the PMMVY scheme, necessarily, he has to satisfy the conditions of eligibility."
-
"The petitioner cannot
at the same time. He cannot
."
