The Court dismisses a PIL challenging the "Priyadarshini Scheme," affirming its constitutionality and alignment with social justice goals.
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the State Government's "Priyadarshini Scheme" that provides free bus travel for women and transgender persons in ordinary KSRTC buses. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., delivered the judgment on June 22, 2026, affirming the scheme's alignment with constitutional provisions and the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The PIL, filed by Muhammed Firdouz, argued that the scheme discriminated against male passengers solely based on sex and lacked targeted welfare objectives. The petitioner contended that the scheme was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, as it extended benefits to all women irrespective of their economic or social status, including tourists and affluent women, without a rational nexus to the purported welfare objectives.
However, the Court emphasized that policy decisions aimed at social justice and empowerment are not subject to judicial interference unless proven unconstitutional. The judgment reiterated that Article 15(3) of the Constitution allows for favorable discrimination towards women and transgender persons to achieve empowerment objectives. The Court noted that the scheme's purpose is to foster socio-economic empowerment by providing unrestricted mobility, thereby increasing employment opportunities for women and transgender persons.
The Bench highlighted that the scheme is part of the State's duty to implement the Directive Principles of State Policy and promote social justice. It further stated that the classification under the scheme is permissible as it is based on considerations beyond mere sex-based classification, aligning with the State's goal of creating a participatory and vibrant society.
The judgment also addressed concerns about the financial burden on the State, stating that the Government had considered these aspects and decided to bear the entire financial expenditure. The Court declined to interfere in the Government's policy decision, asserting that such matters are within the State's prerogative.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's limited role in reviewing policy decisions intended to fulfill constitutional goals of social justice and empowerment. The ruling reaffirms the State's authority to devise schemes that promote the welfare and advancement of disadvantaged groups, in this case, women and transgender persons.
Bottom Line:
Policy decisions of the State aimed at social justice and empowerment cannot be interfered with unless proven unconstitutional or contrary to statutory provisions.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 15(1), 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Muhammed Firdouz v. State of Kerala, (Kerala)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928125
