The plea was withdrawn after the bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan expressed disinclination to entertain the same. The bench wondered how the petitioner, who had an operating licence only in a particular area, could challenge a scheme which was applicable to the entire state.

“You are an operator only in a particular area. How can you challenge the scheme which is applicable in entire Tamil Nadu? You can challenge only that portion which affects you. This is private interest litigation,” the bench orally remarked.

The court also noted that the petitioner had challenged the announcement made by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay without challenging the Government Order in connection with the scheme. The court thus gave liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the present plea and work out her remedy as per law.

“You are challenging the announcement in the assembly. You have to challenge the GO by which this scheme will be made applicable,” the court said.

It may be noted that the earlier DMK government had, in 2021, introduced free bus travel for women and transgender persons in ordinary town and city buses. The newly elected government, under the leadership of CM Joseph Vijay has extended this scheme to ordinary fare buses in mofussil and hilly areas also. On August 24, CM Vijay made a statement to this effect in the State assembly, declaring that the scheme would take effect from October 2, 2026.

The present plea was filed by a stage carriage operator in Erode District, who operates two stage carriages as ordinary services, one in Erode – Vellithiruppur route and another in Kakapalam-Andhiyur route.

The petitioner submitted that when the scheme was announced during the DMK regime, the parties had raised grievances before the then government but the Government did not consider the same. However, since the effect was marginal, as the scheme was only applicable to town and city services, the bus operators did not agitate the issue.

The petitioner argued that with the expansion of the scheme to the mofussil and hilly areas, the private bus operators are severely affected. It was submitted that in Erode region alone, the State operated 172 ordinary services which private sector owned 200 ordinary services. The petitioner pointed out that with the new scheme, the private sectors would not find any passenger in their vehicle as the people would only prefer to avail the freebies issued by the government.

The petitioner pointed out that with the increase in diesel prices , spare parts, road tax, insurance, salaries, etc, the private sector was already finding it difficult to operate. In such a situation, the petitioner said that the announcement of free travel for women comes like applying salt to the injury of the private sector undertakings.

The petitioner had thus claimed that the scheme was against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and was ultra vires and unconstitutional. It was also argued that the scheme is hit by Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, as it shows special treatment in favour of state transport corporations as against private sector.

The petitioner added that when the government had decided to reimburse the transport corporation by way of subsidy, the same ought to have been extended to the private sector also.

Thus, arguing that the scheme causes great hardship, irreparable loss and prejudice to the private sector, the petitioner had sought to declare it unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void. The petitioner had also sought to stay the operation of the scheme.

Case Title: N Kalamani v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 479

Case No: WP 40328 of 2026