WP(C)/3414/2026 of RAMAKANTA NAYAK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 22 July 2026

ORDER

22.07.2026

01.

1. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a public-spirited person, has filed the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a writ of mandamus upon the Government to ban “Subhadra Yojana” and “Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana” on the public interest. It is submitted that a sizable amount of money is allocated under the said Schemes in contravention to the mandate of Article 266 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the Government should not be permitted to continue extending such benefits to the section of the society under the said Schemes.

2. We, at the very outset, must recapitulate the ethos underlying the adoption of the Constitution of India dedicated by the people of India. Part-III of the Constitution of India is a repository of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the citizenry and Article 15(3) thereof, is a reflection of such obligation and preservation of the rights guaranteed to the people of India. It ordains that Article 15 though talks about the equality and non-discriminatory action of the Government against any citizen on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, yet it confers power upon the Government to make a special provision for women and children.

3. The said sub-Article (3) of Article 15 commences with the expression, “nothing in this Article shall prevent the State” which connotes that apart from the non-discriminatory clause incorporated in the said Article, the power to make special provisions for women and children is conferred upon the Government and in pursuit of achieving the same, the constitutional aspiration shown by the framers of the Constitution, any scheme floated by the Government concerning women or children cannot fall upon the anvil of the constitutional morality or its avowed object.

4. Article 266 of the Constitution, as relied upon by the petitioner appearing in person has been wrongly perceived in the sense that the State cannot spend a single penny from the Consolidated Fund of India, except in accordance with the law and the purpose and the manner provided in the Constitution. The said Consolidated Fund is inhered and ingrained in respect of all revenues received by the Government of India being the part of the proceeds of certain taxes and duties to the States and all loans raised by the State on issuance of a treasury bill, loans or ways and means advances and the money received by the Government in repayment of the loans. It does not include any other revenues which the State generates and, therefore, in our opinion, the bare reading of the language used in the said Article, the perception which the petitioner derived, is completely misplaced.

5. It is not only imperative on the Government to make a special provision relating to women and children but also to provide the means of sustenance in pursuit of eradicating the disparity both in social and economic aspect. Once the Government framed a scheme, which comes within the ambit of social welfare scheme to uplift the standard of life of women or children by providing financial means, it cannot be said that such beneficial scheme should be nipped in the bud as one section of the society raises an eyebrow and intended to control the budgetary allocation or any financial dealings of the Government.

6. The “Subhadra Yojana” Scheme is framed by the Government as a policy decision reaffirming the commitment towards improving the status and condition of a woman as the empirical data and the study reveals that despite the landmark legislations, policies and schemes and programs were prioritized, yet the reality becomes a far cry. The “Subhadra Yojana” is considered to be a flagship Scheme in order to ensure the financial empowerment into the women and to provide a safety net with an object to uplift the women through multiple facets of their lives and above all, to strengthen the social fabric which would provide the women with the tools and opportunities for their empowerment. Such a flagship scheme, which is a policy decision of the Government, is not susceptible to be interfered with, except on a well-settled proposition of law or the law laid down in a catena of decisions rendered by the Courts of the country.

7. It is not an uncharted scheme having no fetter put to the beneficiary thereof but the eligibility criteria is succinctly and lucidly incorporated therein, which conveys a laudable message that all women in the section of the society may not come within the purview of the said scheme unless the condition enshrined therein is eminently and evidently exists. Apart from the eligibility criteria, the scheme also reflects the ineligibility criteria which kept certain sections of the women outside the ambit of the said welfare scheme.

8. So far as the “Odisha Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana” is concerned, the societal fabric and the cultural diversity and prevalent practices in the section of the society causes impediment in giving the girls in marriage and the Government, being conscious of such aspects, floated such welfare scheme providing the monetary benefits as marriage assistance which also contains the eligibility requirement and the supporting documents to be uploaded on the portal or to an authority entrusted in this regard.

9. Though the Government is committed to eliminate any bad practices which are archaic in nature and by an advancement in the society is still persisting, therefore, the Government has taken an arduous task to bring a social change and/or the change in the mindset of the society which would not only augment the social development but also the economic development of the country.

10. As a stopgap measure, the said “Odisha Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana” is floated so that the girls may not suffer for such social taboo and a time may come that such conservative notion would be completely eliminated and no hindrance would be there in giving a girl in marriage without any compulsion which is still prevalent. Such flagship schemes are the policy decisions of the Government and there is hardly any room for its interference, unless such schemes are violative of any constitutional provision or statutory provision or fail to withstand on the test of reasonability and rationality (Wednesbury Principle).

11. A litigation of such nature is not only fanciful but having a latent objective of gaining popularity and the Court should rise to such occasion and deal such cases with the iron hands. The Public Interest Litigation cannot be used as a tool to achieve a sinister objective and, therefore, the Court should refrain from entertaining such so-called Public Interest Litigation.

12. We do not find any element of a public interest and, therefore, dismiss the instant writ petition at the threshold, which we hereby do.

13. The petitioner who appears in person is a legal practitioner having a legal acumen and knowledge of law and, therefore, should rise only to an occasion when it is so warranted and should stay away from raising frivolous issues which he, from his inner conscience, knows that the same is not violative of the constitutional law or its provisions. We leave the matter here with the trust and hope for introspection of the petitioner in this aspect.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S. Behera Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jul-2026 11:02:43 Signature Not Verified