Prior Spouse Scholarship Doesnt Bar Application: Rajasthan High Court

A New Chapter for Aspirants: The Court’s Intervention

In a significant relief for students pursuing higher education, the Rajasthan High Court has clarified the boundaries of eligibility for government-funded scholarships. Justice Anuroop Singhi ruled that the receipt of a scholarship by one spouse prior to marriage should not serve as an automatic disqualification for the other spouse under the Swami Vivekananda Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme .

The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Kothari, had challenged the rejection of his son’s scholarship application, which the state authorities had denied on the ground that the applicant’s wife had previously benefited from the scheme.

The Backdrop: Marriage and Eligibility

The dispute arose after Prakhar Kothari, a student currently enrolled in the MBAi program at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, saw his scholarship application rejected on December 19, 2025. The authorities contended that his wife, Ms. Aarushi Asawa, had received a scholarship on September 9, 2022—well before their marriage on April 1, 2023.

Relying on Clause 9(ii) of the scholarship scheme, the state argued that the category (E-3) allowed only one member of a family to avail the benefit. They maintained that because the applicant and his wife formed a single family unit post-marriage, the earlier benefit received by the wife precluded the husband from his own eligibility.

Arguments from the Bar

Representing the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav Sharma argued that interpreting the scheme to disqualify a candidate based on the prior actions of a spouse—when they were not yet in the same family—was arbitrary. He emphasized that the scholarship is a welfare measure intended to promote academic excellence, and it should not be applied to penalize students for events occurring before their marriage.

Conversely, the state’s counsel, Mr. S.S. Naruka, insisted that the scholarship conditions were strict and objective. He maintained that once the marital relationship exists, the clause regarding single-member family benefits must be upheld to prevent dual-dipping into state funds.

Court’s Legal Analysis

Justice Singhi’s analysis shifted focus from a hyper-technical reading of the rules to a "purposive and pragmatic" interpretation. Citing the precedent set by Aaradhya Jain vs. State of Rajasthan , the Court noted that these scholarships are vital for bridging financial gaps in higher education.

"The definition of the word ‘family’ in these circumstances cannot be allowed to shift as the wife of the applicant was earlier a member of Asawa family and post-marriage, she is a member of Kothari family," the Court remarked, noting that a single prior scholarship should not create an exclusion for two entirely separate family units.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting welfare legislation in favor of the intended beneficiaries:

• On the Objective of the Scheme: “The very object of a scholarship is to ensure that lack of resources does not defeat educational aspirations. They are not merely financial assistance but represent life-changing opportunities that empower merit and nurture talent.”
• On Technical Rigidity: “Any hyper-technical approach on the part of the respondents, particularly in matters relating to beneficial and welfare-oriented schemes, is wholly impermissible.”
• On the Interpretation of Family: “Grant of one scholarship to a female candidate cannot result into ineligibility for two families.”

The Final Verdict: A Path Forward

The High Court quashed the December 19, 2025, rejection order, directing the authorities to evaluate the applicant’s case on its own merit. By prioritizing the spirit of academic welfare over a strict, mechanical application of eligibility clauses, this decision creates a vital precedent for future applicants who might face similar challenges due to the shifting demographics of family definitions.

For students and their families, the ruling serves as a reminder that the law governing education schemes remains anchored in the principle of support, not exclusion.