Holding

The Court held that the National Maternity Benefit Scheme must continue and that all BPL pregnant women are entitled to a cash assistance of Rs.500 per birth, with strict directives for implementation and monitoring.

Summary

The Union of India sought permission to modify the National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS) and introduce the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), while the petitioner challenged the legality of discontinuing NMBS benefits. The Supreme Court had earlier ordered that NMBS could not be altered without its approval. After examining data showing poor coverage of JSY and NMBS in many states, the Court directed that NMBS continue and that all Below‑Poverty‑Line pregnant women receive a cash assistance of Rs.500 per birth irrespective of age or number of children. The Court also mandated regular advertising of the scheme, strict earmarking of funds, and filing of affidavits by the Union, states and Union territories detailing beneficiaries. It highlighted concerns about family‑planning implications and the need for possible amendments. The interlocutory applications were consequently disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the Union can discontinue or modify the National Maternity Benefit Scheme without prior approval of the Court
Whether the introduction of the Janani Suraksha Yojana lawfully extinguishes the benefits under NMBS
Whether cash assistance of Rs.500 per birth should be provided to all BPL pregnant women irrespective of age or parity
Whether the funds earmarked for NMBS/JSY must be used solely for the scheme and not diverted
Whether the governments must ensure adequate publicity and monitoring of the scheme

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

Maternity BenefitNational Maternity Benefit SchemeJanani Suraksha YojanaBPLcash assistanceinstitutional deliverypublic healthfund utilizationArticle 32writ petition

Judgment

PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

NOVEMBER 20, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.)

Maternity Benefit:
National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS)-Modification of- c
Janani Suraksha Yojna (JSY) Scheme providing/or further maternity
benefit to women-Introduction of-Held: NMBS Scheme to continue-
Union ofIndia and all State Governments/Union Territories to ensure
-l
that all Below Poverty Line (BP L} pregnant women get cash assistance
ofRs.5001- per birth irrespective ofage ofthe women and number of D
children-Schemes should be advertised regularly so that intended
beneficiaries become aware of the Scheme and get the benefit of the
Scheme-Money ear-markedfor the Scheme should not be utilizedfor
any other pwpose-Taking into consideration all these aspects, ifneed
be, necessaiy amendment in the Scheme could be made-Directions E
issued

Respondent No.1-Union of India filed an application seeking
permission to modify the National Maternity benefit Scheme (NMBS)
and to introduce a new Scheme called the Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY). F
Another application was filed by the petitioner questioning legality of
the discontinuation of the benefit under the NMBS due to introduction
of JSY Scheme. This Court vide its order dated 27.4.2004 directed that
no Scheme .. .in particular... National Maternity Benefit Scheme shall
be discontinued or restricted in any way without prior approval of the G
Court. Later, by order dated 9.5.2005 this Court directed that Additional
Solicitor General to place on record further material in the form of
affidavit to effectively implement the new Scheme sought to be
introduced. It was also directed that the Commissioner shall examine
311 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A the matter in depth and file a report. According to the Union oflndia,
JSY Scheme was introduced to put a premium on the willingness of poor
women to go in for institutional delivery instead of home delivery.

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9.5.2005 the Central
Government, after discussions with the Commissioner, senior officials,
B
took a decision to modify the JSY Scheme to continue benefits ofNMBS
and also to improve upon such benefits for non-institutional delivery,
where the woman chooses to deliver her baby at home and submitted a
report. The report submitted by the Government shows that the NMBS
c Scheme has virtually not taken off in many States and also benefits
under the JSY Scheme has been disproportionately given to only those
women who have had institutional deliveries.

Disposing ofl.A. Nos. 37 of2004 and 54 of2005, the Court
J..

D HELD: 1.1. On consideration of the submissions of the petitioner
and Union oflndia and various aspects and the material data placed on
...
record, following directions are issued:
,,,.
(QThe Union oflndia and all the State Governments and the Union
Territories shall (i) continue with the NMBS and (ii) ensure that all BPL
E
pregnant women get cash assistance 8-12 weeks prior to the delivery.
·~
(ii) The amount shall be Rs.500/- per birth irrespective of number
of children and the age of the woman.
' '

F (iii) All concerned Governments are directed to regularly advertise
the revised scheme so that the intended beneficiaries can become aware
of the Scheme.
(iv) The Central Government shall ensure that the money
earmarked for the Scheme is not utilized for any other purpose. The
G mere insistence on utilization certificate may not yield the expected ...
result.
(v) It shall be the duty of.all the concerned to ensure that the
benefits of the Scheme reach the intended beneficiaries. In case, it is
H noticed that there is any diversion of the funds allocated for the Scheme,
-{
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 313
UNION OF INDIA
such stringent action as is called for shall be taken against the erring A
officials responsible for diversion of the funds.

(vi) The Union of India, State Governments and the Union
Territories shall file affidavits indicating the total number of births in
the State, number of eligible BPL women who have received the benefits, B
number of BPL women who had home/non-institutional deliveries and
have received the benefit, number ofBPL women who had institutional
deliveries and have received the benefit. [Para 14] (321-H; 322-A-G)

2. It would be necessary to take note of certain connected issues c
have relevance. It seems from the Scheme that irrespective of number
of children, the beneficiaries are given the benefit. This in a way goes
against the concept of family planning which is intended to curb the
population growth. Further the age of the mother is a relevant factor
A because women below a particular age are prohibited from legally D
~
getting married. The Union of India shall consider this aspect while
considering the desirability of the continuation of the Scheme in the
present form. After considering the aforesaid aspects and if need be,
necessary amendments may be made. [Para 15] (322-H; 323-A-B]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 34, 35, 37, 40, E
49, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 & 77.
In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of2001.
. ~
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution oflndia)
F
With Suo Moto Contempt Petition (C) No. 128 of2007 in W.P.
(C)No.196of2001.
IN RE: Chief Seery. State ofBihar & 4 Ors.
Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., Jayshree Anand, AAG., Colin Gonsalves, G
'--\ T.S. Doabia, Jaideep Gupta, Anil Diwan, Vipin M. Benjamin, Jai Singh,
Jyoti Mendiratta, J.S. Attri, Vivek Singh Attri, D.S. Mahra, Suslnna Suri,
B.K. Sood, R.C. Kathia, Kh. Nobin Singh, Tarun Jamwal, Dr. Kailash
Chand, Venkateshwara Rao, Anumolu, Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure,
H
314 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.
\
'
A Gautam Godara, K.K. Mahalik, Sunita Sharma, Jana Kalyan Das,
Hemantika Wahi, Shivangi, B.V. Balram Das, Indra Sawhney, Anmeshwar
Gupta, Naveen Kumar Singh, Shashwat Gupta, Riku Sarma (For
Corporate Loaw Group), Rachana Srivastava, S.V. Deshpande, Manoj
Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla, T.V. George, Kamini Jaiswal,
B Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, V.G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle,
Prabu Ramasubramanian, Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,
Gopal Singh, B.S. Banthia, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam Sharma, B.B.
Singh, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Gopal Prasad,
Prakash Shrivastava, Ramesh Babu M.R, D. Bharathi Reddy, Amit Kr.
C Chawla, Sanjay R Hedge, U. Hazarika, Satya Mitra, Sumita Hazarika,
RK. Maheshwari, A. Subhahini, Uday B. Dube, Kuldip Singh, Prashant
Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Anis Suhrawardy, AshokBhan, S.W.A. Qadri
Jubair Ahmed Khan, K.V. Mohan, Manish Sharma, Suparna Srivastava,
Nidhi Minocha, Rajesh Srivastava, Anuvrat Sharma, K.N. ·
D Madhusoodhaiian, R Sathish, RC. Kaushik, Pradeep~sra, G. Prakash,
Malvika Trivedi, Anil Kumar Jha, Gopal Singh, Sibo Shankar Mishra, A.
Mariarputham and Aruna Mathur (for Arputham Aruna & Co.) for the
Appearing parties. ·
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. By this order two !As. No.37 of
2004 and No.54 of2005 stand disposed of. IA No.37 of2004 is an
applicaticJn by the Union oflndia for permission to modify the National
Maternity Benefit Scheme (in short 'NMBS') and to introduce a new ;-
F scheme called the Janani Suraksha Yojana (in short 'JSY'). IA No.54 of
2005 is an application by the petitioner questioning legality of the
discontinuation of the benefit under the NMBS due to introduction of JSY.
By order dated 27.4.2004 this Court directed as follows:
"No Scheme... in particular..•.National Maternity Benefit Scheme
G
shall be discontinued or restricted in any way without prior approval
of the Court."
. -~
·2. Again by order dated 9.5.2005 this Court directed as follows:

H "By LA 37, pennission is sought to modify The National Maternity
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 315
·• UNION OF INDIA [PASAYAT, J.]
Benefit Scheme (NMBC) and to introduce a new scheme namely A
Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY). Whereas in IA 54, the prayer is
that the Scheme should not be modified by reducing, abridging or
qualifying in any way the social assistance entitlements created
under the original scheme ofNMBS for expecting BPL mothers,
including rash entitlement ofRs.500/- provided therein. We have B
requested learned Additional Solicitor General to place on record
further material in the form of affidavit to effectively implement the
new Scheme sought to be introduced. The further material shall
include the approximate distance of Public Health Centre from the
residential complexes and the facility of transportation etc. The C
Commissioner shall also examine the matter in depth and file a
report. The response to the application may be filed within eight
weeks. Meanwhile, the existing National Maternity Benefit Scheme
will continue."
D
3. The government set a numerical ceiling of 57.5 lakh beneficiaries
as the annual target for NMBS. However, the number of beneficiaries
under JSY in 2006-07 was only 26.2 lakh i.e. 45.5% and in the year
2005-06 this was as low as 5.7 lakh i.e. 10%. While there has been an
improvement in the last one year, the coverage under this scheme is still E
way below the target number of women to be covered by the NMBS.
4. According to the Union oflndia the JSY was introduced to put
a premium on the willingness of poor women to go in for institutional
delivery instead of home delivery. But it was recognized that in States with
lower institutional delivery rates, one of the reasons for low performance F
have been lesser availabilities of facilities in the Health Centres, which act
as disincentive for the poor illiterate women to seek the services.
5. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9 .5 .2005 the
Commissioner had prepared a report. G
6. After discussions with the Commissioner appointed by this Court,
senior officials, the Central Government took a decision to modify the JSY
Scheme to continue benefits ofNMBS and also to improve upon such
benefits for non-institutional delivery, where the woman chooses to deliver
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A her baby at home. In this connection, a letter dated 13. 7.2006 was written
to the Commissioner by the Secretary health and Family Welfare under
the amended JSY. The Low Performing States and High Performing States
were defmed as follows:
"4.1 The scheme focuses on the poor pregnant woman with special
B
dispensation for states having low institutional delivery rates namely
the States ofUttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, Rajasthan, Orissa and Jammu and
Kashmir. While these states have been named as Low Performing
States (LPS), the remaining states have been named as High
c Performing States (HPS)."

7. The table below gives details of the numberofbeneficiaries under
JSY (all these would have received the Rs.500/- under NMBS irrespective
of place of delivery) vis-a-vis the annual targets set by the Government
D oflndia for NMBS.
Percentage of Eligible Beneficiaries Covered Under NMBS

State/UT No. of Women No. of Percentage
E eligible for Beneficiaries of Eligible
NMBS in 2006-07 Beneficiaries
covered
Andhra Pradesh 296033 457000 154.4 ,-
F Rajasthan 280123 387648 138.4
J&K 50494 57798 114.5
Assam 182894 183231 100.2
Orissa 264249 227204 86.0
G 401184 84.8
Madhya Pradesh 472840
Mizoram 4429 3330 75.2
Chattisgarh 148876 74778 50.2

H Uttaranchal 37117 18614 50.l
-(
'
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 317
UNION OF INDIA [PASAYAT, J.]
West Bengal 425520 199000 46.8 A
Tami!Nadu 301676 136091 45. l
Kamataka 289339 81152 28.0
A & N Islands 2295 600 26.l
Kerala 107602 27683 25.7 B

Bihar 732891 171352 23.4 .

Puducheny 6446 1315 20.4
Gujarat 212845 42373* 20.0
Punjab 41297 8276 20.0
c
Maharashtra 529777 97390 18.4
Tripura 20601 3203 15.5
l\fanipur 11112 1684 15.2
D
Goa 3188 483 15.1
Lakshadweep 333 42 12.6
Sikkim 4598 446 9.7
Meghalaya 22768 2031 8.9
E
Himachal Pradesh 29222 2508 8.6
Uttar Pradesh 1073341 71456 6.7
Haryana 92856 3294 3.5
D &NHaveli 3850 76 2.0 F
Chandigarh 2108 0 0.0
Delhi 42447 20 0.0
Arunacha!Pradesh 10399 NR NR
Daman&Diu 632 NR NR G
Jharkhand 208592 NR NR
Nagaland 12763 NR NR
Total-India 5925554 2618889 44.2
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 8. The scheme as the details above go to show has virtually not taken
off in many states. Delhi has given the benefit under the NMBS to only
20 women in 2006-07, while in Chandigarh the number of beneficiaries
is 0. In Sikkim, Meghalaya, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana
and Dadar & Nagar Haveli less than even 100/o of the eligible beneficiaries
B have been covered under the NMBS. Except for the states of Andhra
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Orissa
and Mizoram where more than 75% of the eligible beneficiaries seem to
have been reached out to, the performance of this scheme has been very
poor in all other states.
c Indicated below are percentage of Home delivery figures
State/UT % Home delivery % Home delivery in
reported out of JSY the State (NFHS 3)
beneficiaries
D
(2006-07)
Assam 4.4 77
Madhya Pradesh 0.9 70
E Haryana 0.0 61
Rajasthan 13.5 68
Marupur 0.0 51
Delhi 0.0 39 J •

F
Meghalaya 41.4 70
Onssa 33.3 61
Chattisgarh 59.2 84
G 44.8 51
Sikkim
t-·
Tarm!Nadu 5.7 10
Bihar 75.9 78
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 319
UNION OF INDIA [PASAYAT, J.]
Karnataka 37.6 33 A
Kerala 5.2 0
Mizoram 44.1 35
Tripura 60.5 51
B
Uttar Pradesh 90.2 78
Uttaranchal 96.9 64
Punjab 82.9 47
Maharashtra 86.0 34 c
Goa 67.9 7
9. In the States of Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Manipur and Delhi
there are almost no JSY beneficiaries who had a home delivery. This
indicates that in these States the scheme's focus continues to be only on D
institutional deliveries and not all deliveries. Even in the States of Assam,
Rajasthan, Meghalaya, Orissa and Chhattisgarh the JSY has been
disproportionately given to only those who have had institutional deliveries.
10. At this juncture, the financial perfonnance needs to be noted. E
11. The Janani Suraksha Yojana is a centrally-sponsored scheme
with the centre providing 100% of the funds. Some States e.g. Andhra
Pradesh make their own contribution thereby increasing the amount of
cash assistance for institutional deliveries. Tamil Nadu has introduced a
F
separate scheme for providing mothers with Rs.1000/- per month for six
months i.e. three months prior to the delivery and three months after. Given
below are the details of allocation and utilization of the funds provided
by the Central Government.
12. Out of the funds provided for JSY for 2006-07, about 71.2% G
of the funds allocated have been utilized in the year 2006-07.

H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Utilization of funds allocated by JSY
Rs. In Iakhs
Name of the Funds released Expenditure % Utilization
State/UTs in 2006-07 Reported by
B States
Andaman& 10.00 1.99 19.9
Nicobar Island
Andhra Pradesh 4073.20 4550.00 111.7
c Arunachal Pradesh 26.20 0.31 1.2
Assam 1300.00 1331.32 102.4
Bihar 610.00 190.00 31.1
D Chandigarh 5.23 0.00 0.0
Chattisgarh 513.00 516.55 100.7
D & N Haveli 9.17 0.73 8.0
Daman&Diu 5.23 0.00 0.0
E
Delhi 65.49 0.20 0.3
Goa 7.86 3.38 43.0

F
Gujarat 851.85 185.56 21.8
) - .
Haryana 350.00 39.11 11.2
Himachal Pradesh 100.00 20.66 20.7
J&K 138.33 123.84 89.5

G Jharkhand 392.89 64.67 16.5
Kamataka 916.00 594.02 64.8
Kerala 511.94 284.45 55.6
l.akshadweep 4.38 0.31 7.1 '
H
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 321
UNION OF INDIA [PASAYAT, J.]
Madhya Pradesh 4261.00 2482.00 58.2 A

Maharashtra 785.79 209.07 26.6
Manipur 78.57 13.45 17.l
Meghalaya 39.29 42.75 108.8 B
Mizoram 78.57 37.27 47.4
Nagaland 65.49 0.00 0.0
Orissa 1600.001571. 3198.2
Pondicheny
c
19.64 6.10 31.1
Punjab 145.37 56.84 39.l
Rajasthan 4085.00 3056.35 74.8
Sikkim 13.10 7.46 56.9 D
TamilNadu 1827.00 1441.00 78.9
Tripura 117.86 43.70 37.1
Uttar Pradesh 1375.00 436.80 31.8 E
Uttranchal 79.56 56.06 70.5
West Bengal 1678.99 1233.67 73.5
Total 26141.00 18600.93 71.2
F
13. Looking at the State-wise break-up it is seen that states like
Delhi, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, and union territories of
Chandigarh and Daman & Diu have not at all utilized the funds allocated
to them for the purpose of JSY. Among other states, Manipur, Jharkhand
and Haryana utilized less than 20% of the funds released to them. Only G
10 states spent more than 70% of the funds allocated to them under JSY.

14. At the time of hearing of the applications, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the Union of India highlighted various aspects.
Considering the submissions and the material data placed on record we
H
\-
'

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A direct as follows:-

(a) The Union oflndia and all the State Governments and the
Union Territories shall (i) continue with the NMBS and (ii)
ensure that all BPL pregnant women get cash assistance 8-
B 12 weeks prior to the delivery.

(b) The amount shall be Rs.500/- per birth irrespective of number
of children and the age of the woman.

(c) The Union of India, State Governments and the Union
c Territories shall file affidavits within 8 weeks from today
indicating the total number of births in the State, number of
eligible BPL women who have received the benefits, number
ofBPL women who had home/non-institutional deliveries and
have received the benefit, number ofBPL women who had
D institutional deliveries and have received the benefit.

(d) The total number of resources allocated and utilized for the
period 2000-2006.

(e) All concerned Governments are directed to regularly advertise
E
the revised scheme so that the intended beneficiaries can
become aware of the scheme.

(f) The Central Government shall ensure that the money
earmarked for the scheme is not utilized for any other purpose. ~- -
F The mere insistence on utilization certificate may not yield the
expected result.
(g) It shall be the duty of all the concerned to ensure that the
benefits of the scheme reach the intended beneficiaries. In case
G it is noticed that there is any diversion of the funds allocated
for the scheme, such stringent action as is called for shall be
taken against the erring officials responsible for diversion of
the funds.

H 15. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of certain
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES v. 323
UNION OF INDIA [PASAYAT, J.]
connected issues which have relevance. It seems from the scheme that A
irrespective of number of children, the beneficiaries are given the benefit.
This in a way goes against the concept of family planning which is intended
to curb the population growth. Further the age of the mother is a relevant
factor because women below a particular age are prohibited from legally
getting married. The Union of India shall consider this aspect while B
considering the desirability of the continuation of the scheme in the present
fonn. After considering the aforesaid aspects and if need be, necessary
amendments may be made.

16. The IAs are accordingly disposed of. c
S.K.S . Interlocutory Applications disposed of.

.. '