Technical criteria cannot override welfare scheme objective, says High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the rigid application of technical criteria should not undermine the purpose of social welfare schemes.

The observation came as a Bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri admonished the Chandigarh Administration for rejecting the claim of a marginalised individual seeking affordable housing under a welfare scheme.

The ruling came in case of a jhuggi-dweller, who applied for one-room apartment under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme-2006 introduced by the Chandigarh Administration. But his claim was rejected on the ground that he could not be considered as “recognised resident” in accordance with the requirement of the scheme.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner’s name was included in the 2006 biometric survey. His name also appeared in the voter lists of 2004, 2005, 2010 and 2011. But it did not appear in the voter lists of 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009, which was a requirement under the scheme. The authorities turned down his claim primary for this omission.

Referring to the importance of procedural fairness, the Bench made it clear that alternative evidence was required to be considered when determining eligibility for housing benefits under the schemes aimed at uplifting marginalised sections of society.

The Bench asserted the overarching goal of the scheme was to provide shelter to jhuggi dwellers representing the most marginalised sections of society. The scheme, by ensuring access to housing, not only addressed their basic needs but also fulfilled the constitutional guarantee of the right to life, thereby empowering this vulnerable community.

In its detailed order, the Bench observed that the petitioner’s name was missing from the 2006 voter list — a key requirement under the scheme. But he had been included in the 2006 biometric survey and had other supporting documents, such as an electricity connection installed in 2003 and an Aadhaar card showing residence until 2011.

Rapping the authorities for failing to conduct a proper inquiry and for arbitrarily rejecting the petitioner’s application without considering alternative evidence, the Bench asserted a more detailed inquiry was required to be conducted by the competent authority, while ensuring that the parties concerned were given adequate opportunities to present their case.

But detailed inquiry was not undertaken to determine whether the petitioner qualified as a “recognised resident”. “The failure to conduct a thorough and comprehensive proceeding, which would have allowed all parties to adduce the best evidence regarding the satisfaction or non-satisfaction of the criteria for a ‘recognised resident’, constitutes a gross procedural error. As a result, the impugned order suffers from significant flaws and must be quashed and set aside,” the Bench observed before setting aside the order.

What the court observed

Rigid application of technical criteria should not defeat the purpose of social welfare schemes.

Procedural fairness requires authorities to give applicants a chance to justify missing documentation.

Alternative proof of continuous residence such as biometric records, electricity bills and Aadhaar data must be considered when voter lists are incomplete.

Courts will intervene if authorities act arbitrarily in rejecting applications under social schemes.