HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has expressed concern over sweeping claims for benefits based solely on participation in the Telangana statehood agitation, observing that indiscriminate enforcement of such assurances could open floodgates of litigation and impose an unsustainable burden on the public exchequer.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by Gollapally Nagaraju and eight others, who claimed to have participated in the agitation that led to the formation of Telangana. Some of the petitioners also claimed to have undergone imprisonment during the movement.
Relying on reported assurances by the state, the petitioners sought benefits including allotment of a 250 sq yd house site, a Rs 5 lakh grant for house construction, and Rs 10 lakh health insurance coverage.
During the hearing, the court questioned the feasibility of implementing such claims uniformly. Justice Vijaysen Reddy noted that thousands of advocates across Rangareddy and other courts in Telangana had participated in the agitation and contributed financially. If participation alone were treated as the criterion, they too would become eligible for similar benefits.
The court further observed that lakhs of people had taken part in events such as the Million March. Accepting the petitioners’ argument would allow every participant to stake a claim for land and financial assistance.
The judge also pointed out that welfare schemes such as Rythu Bandhu and Rythu Bharosa are funded by taxpayers’ money. Entertaining claims for what the court described as “freebies” through judicial intervention could affect the sustainability of such schemes and result in a surge of similar petitions.
In view of these concerns, the judge refrained from issuing any mandatory directions on allotment of land or monetary benefits. Instead, the court directed the state government to consider the petitioners’ representations within eight weeks, noting that their applications had already been forwarded for examination.
Participation alone should not be eligibility criteria
Justice Vijaysen Reddy noted that thousands of advocates across Rangareddy and other courts in Telangana had participated in the agitation and contributed financially. If participation alone were treated as the criterion, they too would become eligible for similar benefits. The court further observed that lakhs of people had taken part in events such as the Million March. Accepting the petitioners’ argument would allow every participant to stake a claim for land and financial assistance.