The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a strict stance regarding the state government’s mandate requiring a Punjab voter ID card to avail financial benefits under the newly proposed welfare initiative, the ‘Mawan-Dhiyan Satkar Yojana’. Hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the scheme’s criteria, the division bench expressed strong concern over linking basic state-funded welfare benefits exclusively to voter registration. The court has directed the Punjab government to clearly explain the underlying purpose of making a voter ID card mandatory for beneficiaries.
Mandatory Voter ID Condition Challenged in High Court
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor took up the public interest petition filed by the Harbakhsh Charitable Society. The petitioner contended that while a voter ID card serves as one of several valid government identification proofs, making it an absolute mandatory requirement for financial assistance reveals an underlying political motive. The petition alleges that forcing women to possess a local voter card to access monthly welfare payments transforms public welfare into a transactional arrangement designed to secure electoral support for the ruling party.
Financial Relief Breakdown Under Mawan-Dhiyan Satkar Yojana
Under the provisions of the ‘Mawan-Dhiyan Satkar Yojana’, the state government planned to distribute direct financial assistance to adult women across the state. Beneficiaries belonging to the general category are slated to receive ₹1,000 per month, whereas eligible women from Scheduled Caste (SC) communities are designated to receive ₹1,500 per month. However, critics argue that restricting these payouts strictly through voter identification excludes eligible residents who might hold other valid identity credentials such as Aadhaar cards, ration cards, or residence certificates.
Public Fund Allocation and Governance Questions Raised
The petition further highlighted severe contradictions in the state’s fiscal policy and governance. It was brought to the court’s attention that the Punjab government frequently cites acute financial constraints before judicial forums when fulfilling statutory obligations, such as disbursing salaries and pensions to current and retired state employees. Despite these recurring financial difficulties, the administration continues to roll out substantial discretionary subsidies and monetary handouts. The petitioner argued that such practices represent an arbitrary allocation of public resources, violating constitutional standards of financial accountability and prudent governance.
High Court Adjourns Matter and Directs Government Response
Responding to the arguments, the Additional Advocate General representing Punjab sought an adjournment to obtain explicit instructions from the state administration and justify the rationale behind the mandatory voter ID clause. Accepting the request, the High Court deferred the hearing to October 5, granting the state government time to file its formal response explaining why voter cards remain an essential prerequisite for receiving state welfare payments.
