The Karnataka government on Thursday told the Karnataka High Court that beneficiaries of the Gruha Lakshmi scheme cannot claim the monthly financial assistance of ₹2,000 as a matter of right.
A Bench of Justices Anu Sivaraman and KS Bharath Kumar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bengaluru-based labourers alleging that the State has failed to release ₹5,000 crore towards arrears of two instalments of ₹2,000 each to 1.26 crore women beneficiaries of the scheme.
The State has contended that the implementation of the welfare scheme is subject to administrative exigencies and the State's financial constraints.
In its statement of objections, the State government has argued that the existence of a benevolent welfare scheme does not confer an indefeasible right on beneficiaries to demand financial assistance through judicial intervention.
It said that the scheme was introduced to empower women by providing financial assistance to the female head of a family, but its implementation is dependent on administrative requirements.
“The implementation of the scheme largely depends upon the administrative exigencies, and therefore the beneficiaries cannot claim it as a matter of right and seek enforcement of said scheme through judicial interference,” the government stated.
The government has further argued that beneficiaries cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation to demand the assistance when the State is unable to disburse the amount due to genuine financial constraints.
“The existence of a benevolent scheme providing financial assistance does not by itself confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to claim such financial assistance on the basis of legitimate expectation, particularly when State is unable to disburse the financial assistance owing to genuine financial constraints,” the statement of objections said.
The government's objections come against the backdrop of its admission that the Gruha Lakshmi assistance for February and March 2025 was not disbursed due to financial constraints.
According to the statement of objections, proposals for the disbursement of assistance for the two months had been submitted to the Finance Department, but the requisite grant was not released.
The State thus sought dismissal of the petition, contending that it is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
After hearing the State's submissions, the Court granted two weeks’ time to the petitioners' counsel to file a reply to the government's objections.
Additional Advocate General Taranath Pujari appeared for the State government.