Madhya Pradesh High Court hears petition to scrap Ladli Behna scheme over cost concerns

A petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court is seeking the termination of the Ladli Behna scheme, contending that the programme’s fiscal burden outweighs its purported benefits. According to The Hindu, the petitioners claim there is no empirical study proving that the monthly ₹1,500 disbursed to each girl child translates into lasting economic empowerment for women. The court has issued a notice to the state government, asking it to respond to the allegations.

The Ladli Behna scheme, launched in 2015, promises a cash grant of ₹1,500 per month to girl children from birth until they turn 21, with the aim of encouraging families to value daughters and reduce gender‑based discrimination. Over the years, the scheme has expanded to cover millions of beneficiaries across the state, and its annual outlay now runs into several hundred crores of rupees. Critics, including the petitioners, argue that the cumulative cost is eroding the state’s fiscal space, especially as other welfare priorities compete for limited resources.

Supporters of the programme point to its symbolic importance and cite anecdotal evidence that the regular payments have helped families meet schooling and health expenses for their daughters. However, The Hindu notes that the petitioners have highlighted the absence of a rigorous impact assessment, questioning whether the cash transfers have indeed led to higher school enrolment, reduced child marriage, or improved employment outcomes for women.

The legal challenge arrives at a time when several Indian states are reevaluating gender‑focused cash schemes amid tightening budgets. Similar programmes, such as Delhi’s “Ladli” and Karnataka’s “Shakti”, have faced scrutiny over cost‑effectiveness and have been modified to target the most vulnerable households. The outcome of the Madhya Pradesh case could set a precedent for how cash‑transfer initiatives are designed, monitored, and funded in the future.

If the court rules in favour of the petition, the state may have to either discontinue the scheme or redesign it to include performance‑based criteria and stronger monitoring mechanisms. The government has yet to file its response, but officials have previously defended the scheme as a long‑term investment in gender equity, arguing that the social returns outweigh the immediate fiscal outlay.