The plea further claimed that the ₹4,600 crore cost of the scheme is a significant burden on a State already in debt. Advocate Owais Pechkar, representing the petitioner, argued that the budgetary allocation could be better used for infrastructure projects like building roads or highways.
However, the Court maintained that judicial intervention was not warranted based solely on differing opinions on budget allocations,
The Court emphasised that arguments should be made on legal grounds.
“We may make it very clear to you that you have to argue within the legal contours. You don’t have the ground to say that money should be used in a particular way since you are a taxpayer. Budget allocation can’t be challenged. Particular schemes may be more beneficial, but that does not confer any power on us to interfere,” the Court stated.
Pechkar noted that the State’s finance department had expressed concerns about the Ladki Behan Yojna given the State’s financial condition, but the cabinet approved it with clear political motives, as State assembly polls are due in October 2024.
Source: Barandbench
