The Telangana High Court on Monday directed its Registry to number the State government’s appeal against a single judge’s interim stay on Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The Division Bench cleared the way for the appeal to be heard on Tuesday.
Published Date – 1 September 2026, 12:32 AM
Hyderabad: Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin of the Telangana High Court on Monday overruled objections raised by the High Court Registry to the State government’s appeal against a single judge’s interim orders staying the implementation of the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak welfare schemes, and directed that a regular number be assigned to the appeal, clearing the way for it to be heard on Tuesday.
The two schemes, introduced in 2014 through a series of Government Orders to provide financial assistance to unmarried women from the SC, ST and minority communities and later extended to the BC and EBC categories, came under challenge in a petition filed by advocate Vijay Gopal as a party in person, questioning the legal and legislative basis of eight of the GOs.
On August 12, a single judge had granted an interim stay on the implementation of the schemes after the State government failed to file its counter-affidavit. The government subsequently filed its counter, and while the matter remained pending before the single judge, who was not inclined to immediately vacate the stay, the State chose to appeal against the interim orders before a Division Bench.
The Registry, however, declined to number the appeal, raising certain objections, which brought the matter before the Chief Justice’s Bench on Monday. Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy, appearing for the government, contended that the petition itself was not maintainable before a single judge, as the petitioner had neither suffered any prejudice nor shown any violation of his rights on account of the schemes’ implementation.
He argued that the challenge was, in substance, to government policy, and that questions concerning the validity of welfare schemes and policy decisions fell within the jurisdiction of a Division Bench rather than a single judge. He urged the Bench to take up the appeal against the interim orders.
Accepting these submissions, the Division Bench directed the Registry to assign a number to the appeal and listed it for hearing on Tuesday.
