In an unprecedented turn of events, the Kerala High Court has invalidated a government order that approved the Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme. The move comes amidst mounting questions over the financial planning behind the proposed survey, which critics claim is politically motivated and funded through public resources.
The controversial programme, aimed at collecting public feedback on development and welfare initiatives, was sanctioned by the state government in October 2025. However, the budget presented by Finance Minister K N Balagopal on January 29, 2026, reveals that there was no financial provision for the project, raising serious concerns about its implementation.
The order approving the programme stated that the necessary funds would be sourced from the budget head ‘special PR campaigns’. For the financial year 2025-26, the total allocation under this head was only Rs 4.6 crore. In the revised estimate for the following fiscal year, the allocation was further reduced to Rs 4 crore. This apparent shortfall in funding suggests that even the revised financial estimate did not account for the proposed Rs 20 crore expenditure.
Moreover, the October 2025 order committing Rs 20 crore did not appear in the revised estimate tabled before the assembly in January, indicating a lack of budgetary provisions for the programme. Consequently, the budget head designated to fund the survey seems inadequate, both on paper and in practice, raising doubts about the government’s financial commitment.
Even if the Supreme Court grants relief to the state government in its appeal against the High Court verdict, the financial liability may extend beyond the current administration’s tenure due to the lack of budgetary provisions for the survey in the current fiscal cycle. The payment of the Rs 20 crore may therefore be deferred to the next financial year and potentially to the next government.
Should such a scenario materialize, the incoming administration would inherit the financial responsibility arising from the present administration’s decision, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing controversy.
