The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M after hearing both the sides, reserved its verdict.

The petitioner 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 Court however orally asked during the hearing,

“Just because 10% of the people availing have better income.. It does not mean that the entire policy has to be struck off.. You are saying the income.. Will the conductor find out it is zero income or not..”

The petitioner then 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 whole scheme had its origin from an electoral promise made at the end of the election campaign and on 15 June, immediately in the first hour of the forming of the government. Even before the government was formed the department gave approval of the scheme…If the specific case has to be made.. There has to be some specific disadvantage.. The state has to address the specific class that faces the disadvantage.. There has to be a rational nexus between the scheme” the petitioner argued.

Advocate General, Jaju Babu, appearing for the State submitted that similar travel schemes are available in different parts of the country.

“It is the obligation of the welfare State to formulate affirmative action and specific policy measures for the empowerment of women. Bearing in mind for you lordship's information, an identical travel concession was given in Delhi in 2009, followed by Karnataka in 2019.. Tamil Nadu in 2021, Punjab in the year 2021, Telangana in 2023 and West Bengal from 1 June, 2026 same Policy.. It is a uniform policy adopted across different States throughout the country... for empowering the women..” AG submitted.

The Advocate General further relied on Government of A.P v P.B Vijayakumar and Anr [1995] to contend that gender-based affirmative action has been affirmed by the Apex Court.

The counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the question of proportionality was not considered in the judgements referred by the Advocate General.

“When they are bringing a special provision that specifically disadvantages which are currently.. There is nothing on record to show that they have conducted any study to show that the particular disadvantage is currently faced by the women.. They have also not identified the specific class of women who are facing the said disadvantage.. They have to bring the specific nexus between the scheme and those objectives.. That has not been done…” Petitioner further submitted.

The Court heard the matter and reserved for orders.

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

Case No: WP(PIL) 122/ 2026

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

Counsel for Respondent: B.S. Swathi Kumar