Kerala HC
Thiruvananthapuram: In a huge embarrassment to the LDF govt, Kerala HC has set aside a govt order that sanctioned Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme, even as the state budget revealed there was no financial provision for the project. The state govt has now moved Supreme Court challenging the verdict. The budget, presented on Jan 29 by state finance minister K N Balagopal, raises questions about the financial planning behind the proposed survey, seen by critics as politically motivated and funded with public money. The govt order, passed on Oct 10, 2025, sanctioned Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme, which reportedly aimed at gathering public feedback on development and welfare initiatives. The order stated that the Rs 20 crore required for the exercise would be met from the budget head ‘special PR campaigns’. For financial year 2025-26, the total allocation under this head was only Rs 4.6 crore. In the 2026-27 budget, the revised estimate for this was further reduced to Rs 4 crore. This clearly indicated that even the revised financial estimate did not reflect any provision for Rs 20 crore expenditure. Also, the Oct 2025 order committing Rs 20 crore did not find mention in the revised estimate placed before the assembly in Jan. In effect, the budget head identified to fund the survey does not contain sufficient allocation even on paper, raising questions about how govt intended to finance the programme. Even if SC ultimately grants relief to govt, the financial liability may not fall within the tenure of the present administration. In the absence of allocation in the current budget cycle, the payment of the Rs 20 crore is likely to spill over to the next financial year, and potentially to the next govt. If that scenario unfolds, the burden of clearing the dues arising from the the present administration’s decision would rest on its successor. The controversy has, therefore, moved beyond a legal setback to a fiscal and administrative issue: How was a Rs 20-crore commitment issued without corresponding budgetary backing? With the matter now before SC, the legal challenge continues, but the financial arithmetic reflected in the budget documents remains difficult to reconcile.
