Perilous For Courts To Test Utility Of Govt. Policy: Madras High Court Sets Aside Order Granting Benefit Under Repealed Marriage Assistance Scheme

The High Court took note of the fact that the Government had taken a policy decision to remodel “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme” into “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme” in order to enhance women empowerment.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated, “Any policy formed by the Government is based on consideration of various factors and law, including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be perilous if courts are asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out in affidavits. The Court should dissuade from entering into this fiefdom which belongs to the executive.”

Advocate General P.S.Raman represented the Petitioner while Advocate A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent had submitted an application under the “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme” seeking to avail the benefits. The respondent sent a representation and the District Social Welfare Officer informed her that the benefits of the said scheme could not be extended to the respondent, as the said Scheme was restructured as “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme”. Seeking quashment of the said order, the respondent filed the writ petition. The respondent herein also sought a consequential direction to the appellant authorities to provide the welfare fund of Rs.50,000 and 8 gram gold coin.

The Single Bench had held that the petitioner was not extended the benefit of the scheme due to the lethargic and inaction on the part of the revenue authorities. The State Govt was directed to give or release 8 grams of gold and deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 to the account of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed an appeal.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the respondent had not challenged the decision taken by the government to restructure the scheme. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that the Government had taken a policy decision to remodel “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme” into “Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme” considering the low enrollment ratio of girl students from government schools in higher education and, according to the government, such policy decision was taken in order to enhance women empowerment.

The Bench took note of the fact that nothing was placed on record by the respondent to show that the restructuring of the old scheme was arbitrary, and also no financial sanction was given to all pending applications from the year 2018-2019 to 2021-2022. Holding that no mala fides or discrimination could be alleged, the Bench stated that the Single Judge ought to have exercised judicial restraint, rather than extending the benefit of a non-existent policy to the respondent.

Decision

The Bench thus allowed the appeal while setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge.

Cause Title: Government of Tamil Nadu v. J. Praveena (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:1250)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate General P.S.Raman, Government Advocate K.Karthik Jagannath

Respondent: Advocate A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

Click here to read/download Order