Heavy price of pay first, verify later

Ladki Bahin Yojana applicants throng an Anganwadi in Dadar West to submit forms on October 15, 2024. File pic/Ashish Raje

Pay first, verify later" seems to have come at a cost. Nearly one out of every three beneficiaries of the Maharashtra government's Ladki Bahin scheme may turn out to be ineligible. This raises important questions about how the scheme was carried out.

Out of 2.46 crore beneficiaries, over 65 lakh may not meet the eligibility criteria. This is not a small gap. It suggests that something went wrong in the process.

The monthly Rs 1500 assistance, intended to support women from weaker sections, was designed as a strong welfare measure, with direct cash transfers, broad reach, and a quick rollout. While the intent looked positive, some basic checks appear to have been missed.

In any welfare scheme, the simple rule is to verify first and then give benefits. Here, this order seems to have been reversed, and the impact is now visible.

When farmers face losses due to heavy or low rainfall, support is given only after proper checks. Officials carry out a panchnama, assess the damage, and then decide the amount of help. This process may take time, but it ensures that the right people receive support.

In comparison, this scheme followed a different approach. This raises a fair question: should similar standards be followed across all financial assistance programmes? Today, digital verification is quite easy. With existing systems and databases, eligibility can be checked quickly. This could have been done soon after people enrolled. However, verification appears to have begun only months after the scheme started, with money already being distributed. This delay reduced the effectiveness of the process and may have allowed funds to reach the wrong hands.

The financial impact is also significant. Even small monthly payments, when given over several months to a large number of ineligible people, could amount to nearly Rs 15,000 crore in public money.

In its first year, the government had indicated an annual outlay of around Rs 45,000 crore for the scheme. However, the budget provision was later set at about R36,000 crore. There have also been discussions about increasing the monthly assistance to R2100 at an appropriate time. This shows that the scheme carries a significant financial commitment, making it even more important to ensure that the benefits reach only eligible recipients.

When verification is delayed, proper scrutiny is also delayed. Naturally, this leads to questions about process and accountability. There is also a growing feeling that issues were expected to be corrected later.

That "later" has now come, and the results are being seen.

People may begin to wonder whether such schemes are designed for long-term benefit or short-term political gain. When decisions appear rushed, trust can be affected.

In this context, the Opposition has been calling this a vote-based scheme. With many beneficiaries now in question, this may give them more reason to raise concerns. At the same time, they may remain cautious, as criticising such schemes could upset beneficiaries.

It is also important to understand that governments often face pressure to act quickly. Welfare schemes are meant to provide immediate help. But speed without proper systems can create risks. Large programmes need strong support systems, clear rules, and proper verification.

When such a large number of beneficiaries are in question, it is not a minor issue. It shows the need to review the overall approach.

Another concern is recovery. Once money is transferred, it is very difficult to get it back. The process is slow and complicated, and in many cases, the money may not be recovered.

This shows why the order of steps is important. Verification is not just a formality; it is necessary for the proper use of public money. If this step is delayed or skipped, risks increase.

The key lesson is simple. Welfare schemes should not focus only on speed. They must also ensure accuracy and accountability. Technology can help, but only when used at the right stage.

It is also important to understand where things went wrong, whether in planning or execution, so that similar issues can be avoided in the future.

This is not just about one scheme. It highlights a larger lesson in governance. When timelines become too tight, processes can suffer.

In the end, even well-intentioned schemes need careful planning. When a large number of beneficiaries turn out to be ineligible, an important question remains: could things have been done more carefully from the start?

Sanjeev Shivadekar is political editor, mid-day. He tweets @SanjeevShivadek

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper