Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Free Bus Travel For Women, Transgender Persons

The Kerala High Court on Monday (22 June) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the State Government's recently launched "Priyadarshini Scheme," which provides free travel for women and transgender persons in ordinary Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) buses. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336]

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment. 

“There is nothing before us to term that Exhibit P1 G.O as contrary to the statutory norms or is perverse or illegal. Hence the litigation fails and it is dismissed," the Court pronounced. 

The petitioner had argued that the scheme violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It was argued that the benefit is available regardless of economic status, allowing affluent women to travel free while economically weaker male passengers continue to pay fares.

The petitioner had also argued that Article 15(3), which permits special provisions for women and children, cannot be invoked to justify a blanket subsidy for all women without identifying a specific disadvantage or welfare objective.

The State on the other hand submitted that similar travel schemes are available in different parts of the country and contended that gender-based affirmative action has been affirmed by the Apex Court. 

In a hearing last week, the High Court had orally asked whether few affluent beneficiaries could sink the entire scheme.

Relying on S.Subramaniam Balaji v State of Tamil Nadu and others [(2013) 9 SCC 659], the Court underlined the scope of judicial review in cases concerning the distribution of State largesse. The Court noted that whether the State should frame a scheme that directly or indirectly improves living standards or means of livelihood, is for the State to decide. 

"As long as the schemes come within the realm of 'public purpose' and the monies for the schemes are withdrawn with the passing of a relevant appropriation bill, the court has limited power to interfere with such schemes." Court noted. 

The Court then went on to observe that the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to Article 15 (3) cannot be countenanced. It noted that the discrimination in favour of a particular sex  would be permissible, provided it is not only on the ground of sex. 

Reliance was placed on Dattatraya Motiram More v State of Bombay and another [1952 SCC OnLine Bom 120], to note that it is open to the State to discriminate in favour of a particular sex for reasons and considerations that would not just be confined merely to the fact that the members or individuals belong to that particular sex, but may also be based on other relevant considerations. 

"If the Government has discriminated in favour of women and transgender persons by extending free travel in Ordinary KSRTC buses, it is not only on the grounds that they are women or transgender, but on various other considerations and factors..... As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General in a welfare State it is incumbent upon the State to formulate a welfare scheme and take affirmative action towards empowerment of women and it is the need of the hour to provide them with all such facilities that would help them towards such empowerment." Court noted. 

The Court further added that when a policy or scheme is evolved towards the implementation of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the principle of not treating unequals as equals has no applicability as State largesse is involved. 

The Court further noted that the economic empowerment of women and the protection of women's rights are integral parts of the constitutional scheme and when the State evolves schemes to materialise that goal, such policy decisions cannot be subjected to judicial review. 

"It is the duty of the State to extend benefits and to provide concession/privileges to those who are in need thereof, and if the State, in its perception of furthering such Directive Principles of State Policy, evolves and implements beneficiary schemes/concessions, as like the one in Exhibit P1 G.O., and incurs expenditure in the said respect or discriminates within the confines of Article 15 (3), such policy or scheme cannot be termed unconstitutional." Court held 

With these observations, the Court dismissed the petition. 

Case Title: Muhammed Firdouz v The State of Kerala and Ors

Case No: WP(PIL) 122/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336

Counsel for Petitioner: M.P. Shameem Ahamed, Ahamed Iqbal, Shabnam Kodalil

Counsel for Respondent: B.S. Swathi Kumar

Click Here To Read/ Download Judgment