Telangana HC questions govt financial priorities over welfare schemes

The Telangana High Court questioned the State government's financial priorities while hearing a plea challenging Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The Court sought details of Telangana's debt, scheme funding and unpaid dues, while retaining its interim stay on disbursements

Hyderabad: Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday took strong exception to the State government’s affidavit and questioned its financial priorities while hearing a writ petition challenging the implementation of the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. Taking a serious view of the government withholding dues from various sections while funding large welfare programmes, the Court directed the State government to clarify its payment priorities and furnish comprehensive details regarding the State’s overall debt and compensation owed to land losers.

The judge was hearing a petition filed by advocate Vijay Gopal, appearing as a party-in-person, who challenged the implementation of the two welfare schemes without legislative approval. The High Court had previously stayed the operation of eight Government Orders (GOs) relating to the schemes, including the disbursement of funds, after the State failed to file a counter-affidavit.

---

During the proceedings on Thursday, the bench expressed strong objection to the incorrect citation of Article 162 of the Constitution in the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary of the Backward Classes (BC) Welfare Department. Directing Additional Advocate General (AAG) Imran Khan to read the eighth paragraph of the affidavit, the judge pointed out that a lengthy explanation contrary to the actual constitutional provision had been included under the guise of Article 162.

Stating that this could not be dismissed as a mere oversight, the Court demanded an explanation as to how a constitutional article came to be cited incorrectly in an official document. The AAG admitted to the error, acknowledging the mistake and assuring the Court that a better, corrected affidavit would be filed.

While clarifying that the Court did not intend to interfere with the implementation of welfare schemes, Justice Shravan Kumar posed pointed questions about the government’s priorities. The Judge questioned the justification for withholding legitimate dues from farmers who surrendered their lands for public purposes, retired pensioners and current staff.

“Are they not human beings?” the Court asked, further highlighting the plight of temporary employees working for minimum wages who are struggling due to unpaid salaries. The judge notably pointed out that even court staff had not received their salaries for several months.

Acknowledging that the government must manage its financial obligations, the Court remarked that every individual approaching it has genuine needs, and it bears the responsibility of balancing these priorities.

During the arguments, the petitioner brought to the Court’s attention a representation submitted by State employees and pensioners to a committee headed by IAS officer Naveen Mittal, highlighting the pendency of six Dearness Allowance (DA) instalments and the non-implementation of the second Pay Revision Commission (PRC). The AAG countered that there was no connection between employee arrears and the welfare schemes in question.

When the petitioner attempted to cite an incident where a government contractor in LB Nagar allegedly died by suicide due to the non-payment of a Rs 5 crore bill, the Court immediately intervened. Seeking the relevance of the incident to the present case, the judge sternly warned against attempts to turn the High Court into a political platform.

“Such political remarks may be made on social media, political platforms, or in TV debates, but certainly not in court. Everyone must uphold the sanctity and dignity of this court,” Justice Shravan Kumar observed.

Meanwhile, regarding pending payments in other matters, the AAG informed the Court that tokens had been issued and GOs released for three out of 19 pending contempt cases. The judge directed that the reasons for non-payment in the remaining 16 cases be examined individually and submitted to the Court.

Observing that the BC Welfare Department’s affidavit lacked a specific explanation regarding the debt status of Telangana, the Court held that a response from the Finance Department is necessary for the adjudication of the matter, especially concerning compliance with the Telangana Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2005.

The judge directed the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department to file a detailed counter-affidavit explaining whether the State government had availed any loans specifically to fund schemes like Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak, along with complete details of the State’s total accumulated debt.

The Court did not vacate its interim stay on the disbursement of funds under the schemes and directed the government to explain the submission of incorrect details by the next date of hearing. The matter has been adjourned to August 24.