Can't Expand Marriage Assistance Scheme To All With Minimum Wage, Court Cannot Substitute One Executive Policy For Another: Madras High Court

Interfering with an observation made by a single judge, the bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the single judge could not substitute one executive policy for another. The bench noted that when there was no law that extended the scheme to persons with minimum wages, such a benefit could not be ordered by the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

“We are of the considered view that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge was not only beyond the scope of the writ petition but also amounts to substituting one executive policy for the other. In the absence of there being any law of the land that the benefit of marriage assistance shall be extended to those who are earning minimum wages or less, extension of that benefit to a larger class is only in the realm of the executive function and could not be ordered in exercise of judicial power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

The Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Ninaivu Marriage Assistance Scheme was a flagship initiative by the Tamil Nadu Government, giving financial assistance to families earning not more than Rs 6000 per month, i.e., Rs 72,000 per year. As per the scheme, the eligible brides are given cash assistance of Rs. 25,000 and one sovereign (8 grams) gold coin. The scheme was howeve,r discontinued from August 2, 2022.

The bench was dealing with an appeal filed by the State government assailing an order of a single judge, in which the single judge had directed the state to extend the benefit of the scheme to all families who were earning minimum wages.

The single judge was dealing with a plea filed by a woman whose claim was rejected by the authorities, citing that her income certificate showed that her yearly income was Rs. 1,08,000 and thus she would not be eligible for the scheme. The woman had argued that she was only earning Rs 6000 per month and was thus eligible for the scheme, and that the income certificate had wrongly mentioned the annual income. The single judge had directed the state to grant her assistance and also directed that the scheme to persons earning minimum wage.

The State argued that the policy was not challenged before the single judge and he could not have made a sweeping direction to extend the scheme to larger class of persons earning income more than Rs 6000. The State also argued that the woman had not challenged the correctness of the income certificate and the single judge could have only directed the authorities to consider her representation for fresh inquiry into the correctness of the income certificate.

The court noted that the single judge had gone beyond the scope of the petition and substituted one executive policy with another. The court noted that it had limited judicial review when it came to executive policy. The court noted that the order of the single judge could not be sustained since the policy was under challenge before it.

Though the scheme was discontinued, the court directed the authorities to give the benefit of the policy to the writ petitioner, if she was able to get a modified income certificate to prove that her income during the relevant time was Rs. 6000.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. P.S.Raman, Advocate General Assisted By Mr. S.John J.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader

Case Title: The Principal Secretary to Government and Another v. S Chitra and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 102

Case No: WA No.3866 of 2025