The Delhi High Court Wednesday questioned the Delhi government over a requirement under the Lakshmi Yojana scheme that women seeking benefits get an endorsement from an elected representative. The court asked the government to take instructions and respond.
A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by former Congress municipal councillors Abhishek Dutt and Vedpal Chaudhary, seeking that the condition of an endorsement to a potential beneficiary from an MP or an MLA be done away with.
The direct benefit transfer scheme launched on August 1 provides Rs 2,500 per month to eligible women. But there are several eligibility conditions women must meet first: a mandatory 10-year continuous residency or domicile of Delhi, a three-child cap, being the eldest in the family, etc.
Another condition includes a mandatory endorsement or recommendation letter from the local MP or MLA as a precondition for processing an application.
The petitioners have contended that this “confers an unbridled discretion upon political representatives and converts a state welfare entitlement into an instrument of political patronage”, adding that unlike other government schemes, Lakshmi Yojana “introduces an unprecedented and restrictive layer of political gatekeeping”.
‘Better ways to determine eligibility’: HC
Hearing the PIL on Wednesday, the bench orally inquired from the state’s counsel, “If someone fails to get endorsement of an application, will they be allowed to approach the second stage? You’re blocking her application and making it dependent on what the MLA thinks. There are better ways to determine eligibility…”
It further said, “… Is it justifiable? Where is the requirement? Where is it flowing from? Seek instructions; we cannot approve of it. Why do you want the endorsement? There are 2,000 ways to verify this, to assess this. Why are you asking them to approach the MP/MLA? Why do you require this document? You can ask them to produce documents.”
Story continues below this ad
Directing the state’s counsel to obtain instruction on the specific aspect of the requirement of endorsement from the local elected representative, the bench recorded in its order, “We are of the prima facie view that in assessing as to whether a woman fulfils the criteria, various documents can be asked to be produced by her… and it is quite possible that a woman may or may not be able to get endorsement from the MP/MLA of the constituency concerned. In any case, the eligibility does not require endorsement.”
The court will hear the matter next on August 24.
What the petitioners flagged
The petitioners have flagged that “for women residing in informal settlements and marginalised colonies, such offices [of MPs, MLAs] are often situated at considerable distances and are not adequately connected by last-mile public transport.”
“The requirement, therefore, entails repeated expenditure of time and money, disruption of household and livelihood responsibilities, and substantial physical and logistical hardship for women who are, by the very object of the said scheme, amongst its most vulnerable intended beneficiaries,” the petitioners stated.
Highlighting that the scheme does not prescribe any SOP or statutory guideline or administrative framework on how a woman applicant has to approach the elected representative for the letter, the petitioners said the “absence of these basic procedural safeguards leaves women applicants without any certainty regarding the status of their requests…”
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
