No vested right to benefits under a welfare scheme restructured or abolished via policy decision.

The Respondent applied for benefits under the "Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Marriage Assistance Scheme" on July 29, 2019, seeking ₹50,000 and an 8-gram gold coin.

After her representation in 2024, the authorities informed her that the scheme had been restructured into the "Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Higher Education Assurance Scheme," and thus benefits could not be extended.

The Respondent challenged this in W.P.No.35378 of 2025.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on September 17, 2025, holding that the delay was due to the "lethargic" inaction of revenue authorities and directed the State to release the benefits within one week.

The State filed the present appeal against this order.

The court emphasized that policy formation is the exclusive domain of the executive, based on resource constraints and expert opinion.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Ritu Maheshwari v. Promotional Club, which established that if a policy decision to terminate a benefit is not challenged, the impact on pending applications cannot be the subject of a grievance.

The court further applied the principles from The Commissioner and others v. Sithammal and The Principal Secretary to Government and others v. S.Chitra, holding that judicial review under Article 226 does not permit the extension of an abolished scheme to applications submitted prior to its closure.

The Court found that the Government’s decision to remodel the marriage assistance scheme into a higher education assurance scheme was a strategic policy shift intended to enhance women’s empowerment and girl-student enrollment in higher education.

The Court noted that the Respondent failed to challenge the restructuring of the scheme itself.

Critically, the Court observed that the State had not granted financial sanctions for any pending applications from the 2018-2019 to 2021-2022 periods, thereby negating any allegations of mala fides or discrimination against the Respondent.

The Division Bench reasoned that the Single Judge erred by substituting executive policy with judicial discretion and directing the enforcement of a non-extant scheme, which violates the principle of judicial restraint.

The High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, effectively dismissing the Respondent's writ petition.

No costs were awarded.