Here’s what Kerala High Court said on ‘fiscal discipline’ as it cancelled Rs 20 crore allotted for govt’s Nava Keralam initiative

Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M were hearing PILs alleging the misuse of public funds.

“The facts and circumstances as discernible from the documents produced and the stand taken by the state when confronted with the apparent violations of norms in force, lead us to conclude that much is left to be desired when it comes to fiscal discipline that is expected to be followed by the government while handling public funds,” the court said in its February 17 order.

The high court found that the allocation of Rs 20 crore to the said programme has been pointing to a “colourable exercise” of executive power. The state government had launched the programme early last month to gather people’s feedback on development and welfare schemes, understand local needs, and collect public opinion.

The court emphasised that the government is not debarred from taking any welfare measures or undertaking any development or welfare study programme like the programme in question. However, any expenditure incurred must have a financial sanction and should comply with all the financial rules.

‘Should political party serve as face of govt?’

The court started its verdict by first mentioning the issues raised in the PILs in clear language.

• Should a political party be the face of the government and influence the government in designing its events to suit the political needs of the party?
• In the process of implementing such policies, can the utilisation of the public exchequer without sanction under the rules of business be justified?

Observation: Welfare initiative or political gain?

• The PILs are filed to analyse the introduction and significance of Nava Keralam, a citizen response programme aimed at development and welfare studies and to ascertain the conditions of the people and the implementation of welfare measures.
• Since crores of rupees from the public exchequer are involved in the said programme, it is important to scrutinise the allegation against the implementation of the said programme.
• The petitioners have locus standi as they are citizens who have raised an issue which is a general public cause and significant to consider by the court.
• The court will take the matter as the PILs have allegations of expending Rs 20 crore from public funds, stating that it violates the law, particularly at a time when elections are knocking at the door.
• The said programme falls within the scope of the business of the Planning and Economic Affairs Department or Programme Implementation, Evaluation and Monitoring Department and not within the business of the Department of Information, Public Relations, to which Rs 20 crore is found to have been allocated.
• Allotting Rs 20 crore for the conduct of the said programme under the head “special PR campaign” runs contrary to the law established in the state.
• The said programme is under a sub-head of the Information & Public Relations Department (IPRD) by putting it under the ‘community listening scheme’, apparently to enable an “easy allocation” under the convenient special PR campaign head.
• The budget allocated to the state has been issued when the declaration of Assembly elections is around the corner.
• The Samoohya Sannadha Sena Portal, through which the applications are invited for the selection of Karma Sena for this said programme, was not intended for the purpose for which the present exercise is sought to be carried out.
• There was an additional allocation of around Rs 14 crore, without prior sanction of the legislature, made to the IPRD in excess of the Rs 4.6 crore already allotted to the same department in connection with the said programme.
• However, the manual evolved by the state government to govern its fiscal affairs itself mandates that, without a vote of the legislature, no money be spent beyond the scope of the grant sanctioned.
• With elections around the corner, it is questionable that the government would have the time at its disposal to collate, compare, study and implement the lessons which are to be drawn from the data collected from the said programme which is carried out expending multi-crore rupees.
• The expenditure incurred in the implementation of the Nava Keralam Programme is in violation of the rules of business provided by the state.
• The authorisation of the IPRD to utilise Rs 20 crore for a ‘special PR campaign’ is hereby set aside.

PILs allege ‘insider knowledge’

• Appearing for one of the petitioners, advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy argued that the ruling party/front had “insider knowledge” of the Nava Keralam programme and had been preparing its members and supporters beforehand to flood the ‘volunteer force’.
• He emphasised that the strategy was to turn the said programme into a party political campaign for the Assembly elections that are around the corner.
• Shenoy further submitted that the use of the ‘Samoohya Sannadha Sena Portal’ for selecting volunteers to implement the Nava Keralam Programme is illegal.
• He reasoned that the said portal had been established through a government order issued in the year 2020 for the specific purpose of forming a social volunteer force to provide assistance in natural disasters in the state and to help in any local crisis.
• Shenoy also highlighted that the portal volunteers are not intended to create a force to conduct a door-to-door feedback collection programme for policy refinement or to advertise the government’s so-called achievements as a “prelude” to elections.
• He called it an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power to highlight the political party’s imaginary deeds.
• The conduct of the said programme under the head “special PR campaign” is in violation of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala.
• The said programme, by its very nature and scope, falls within the purview of the Planning and Economic Affairs Department and not under the IPRD.
• The said programme budget allocation violates the provisions of the Constitution, as it does not comply with the mandatory authorisation from the legislature before the allocation of the fund.
• The programme is a pre-electoral data harvesting and voter outreach conducted by the ruling political party at the expense of public funds.
• He sought directions to ensure that no fund is released from the public exchequer/government treasury to pursue the Nava Keralam programme.

State’s submission: Programme, a policy matter

• The state, through Advocate General K Gopalakrishna Kurup, submitted that the Nava Keralam Programme is a development and welfare study intended to obtain development suggestions and ideas from the people, to seek their opinions on welfare projects, to understand development needs locally, and to plan and collect opinions from the public.
• It is argued that the programme is an essential welfare study intended to augment and facilitate the development measures already undertaken.
• It is also pointed out by the state that it is a ‘policy matter’ and is beyond the scope of consideration by this court under Article 226 (power of high courts to issue certain writs) of the Constitution of India.
• Kurup also pointed out that the petitioners do not have locus standi.
• It was submitted that the Samoohya Sannadha Sena Portal is not intended exclusively for the Nava Keralam Programme, and people register on the said portal for many similar activities.
• It is for the volunteers to decide whether to participate or not, and the portal is a continuing mechanism for the development of the state, where no volunteers are excluded, and all enrolled volunteers continue to be retained and recognised within the platform.
• Concerning budgetary allocation, it is submitted that there has been no illegality or financial impropriety either in the programme or in its approval or implementation.
• As far as the significance of the programme is concerned, it is submitted that it was implemented transparently, utilising the service of members of the ‘social volunteer force’.
• The programme is to collect opinions and suggestions for the development of the state, and no campaign is intended; neither are any political party messages given, nor is there any mention of any political party. Therefore, there is no violation of the rights of citizens under Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
• The government cannot be called upon to explain its programmes, based on any circular issued by a political party to its own cadres.