Legal Correspondent Hyderabad

TheTelangana High Court on Thursday questioned the legal basis and constitutional framework under which the State government introduced the ‘Kalyana Lakshmi’ and ‘Shadi Mubarak’ welfare schemes, which provide financial assistance for marriage to eligible beneficiaries.

Justice Natcharaju Venkata Shravan Kumar heard a writ filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, (appearing in person). The petitioner has challenged the GOs through which the two schemes were introduced and revised from 2014 onwards. He contends that framing welfare schemes and fixing eligibility criteria are essentially legislative functions and that the schemes, introduced through executive orders, are arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The petition challenges eight GOs issued between September 2014 and June 2019 by the Scheduled Castes Development, Minorities Welfare and Backward Classes Welfare departments.

During the hearing, Additional Advocate-General Mohammed Imran Khan appeared for the government. The bench questioned the State on various aspects of the implementation of welfare schemes and the financial obligations arising from them. The court also examined an affidavit filed by the State in response to the petition. The bench took serious exception to the manner in which Article 162 had been reproduced in the affidavit. The court observed that the provision had not been reproduced correctly and questioned how an incorrect version could form part of an affidavit filed on behalf of the government. Khan acknowledged the error and described it as a typographical mistake. He assured the court that the error would be corrected and a fresh affidavit filed.

The bench, however, said the mistake was a serious one and indicated that the issue could not be considered further on the basis of an affidavit containing such a material error. The court questioned whether the officer who had sworn the affidavit was properly authorised to file it on behalf of all respondents.

The State submitted that the GOs were issued in exercise of the executive power of the State under Article 162 and were intended to implement welfare measures aimed at achieving the constitutional goal of social justice. The court made it clear that it was not seeking to dictate how the government should manage its finances. The concern, it said, was with the legal and constitutional basis of the schemes and the manner public funds were being allocated.

The bench directed the Finance department to file an affidavit setting out the State’s financial position and explaining whether any loans had been raised for continuing the welfare schemes. The court also sought details of the State’s total debt, observing that the information would be relevant to the issues before it. The court referred to the provisions relating to fiscal responsibility and questioned whether borrowing could be resorted to for meeting expenditure on such schemes.

During the hearing, the bench expressed concern over delays in the payment of various welfare and statutory benefits. The discussion included pending payments to land losers, beneficiaries of welfare measures, retired employees and even government staff.

The court observed that when matters involving non-payment of statutory or welfare benefits come before it, it has to consider the competing claims and ensure a balance, while leaving financial policy decisions to the Government.

At one stage, the bench cautioned the parties against turning court proceedings into a platform for political arguments. The court said political statements and allegations should not be made in open court and stressed that the dignity and sanctity of judicial proceedings must be maintained.