PIL filed in Orissa HC alleges misuse of funds in Subhadra Yojana, MKBY

The petition was filed by 78-year-old advocate Ramanta Nayak, who contended that the two schemes violated the provisions of the Odisha Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (OFRBM) Act, 2005.
Orissa High Court.
Orissa High Court.(File Photo | Express)
Updated on
2 min read

CUTTACK: A PIL filed in the Orissa High Court has challenged the constitutional and legal validity of the state government’s flagship welfare schemes - Subhadra Yojana and Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana (MKBY), seeking directions to discontinue their implementation.

The petition was recently filed by 78-year-old Cuttack-based advocate Ramanta Nayak, who contended that the two schemes violated the provisions of the Odisha Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (OFRBM) Act, 2005.

He alleged that the programmes involve large-scale and unconstitutional withdrawals from the state’s Consolidated Fund and amount to misuse of public money under the guise of women’s empowerment.

The petition named the chief secretary, Finance secretary and Women and Child Development department as parties in the case. However, it has not been taken up for hearing so far.

Nayak pointed out that the Subhadra Yojana envisages direct cash transfer of Rs 50,000 to each eligible beneficiary for over five years, from 2024-25 to 2028-29. Under the scheme, women aged between 21 and 60 years receive annual assistance of Rs 10,000 in two installments. The scheme aims to cover around one crore women across the state.

He also challenged the Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana, under which eligible beneficiaries receive financial assistance of Rs 60,000 for marriage-related expenses. The scheme is projected to cost the state exchequer around Rs 650 crore over five years.

“Both schemes have been formulated through Cabinet decisions and lack specific legislative sanction despite involving recurring expenditure of considerable magnitude,” Nayak contended, seeking the High Court’s intervention into the matter.

The PIL stated that the issue concerns expenditure running into thousands of crores of rupees and raises questions over fiscal discipline, legislative control over public finance, the rule of law and the equality provisions of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that such spending could adversely affect the state exchequer and divert resources from priority sectors such as health, education, irrigation and infrastructure.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com