The court held that the ₹20-crore allocation and implementation lacked mandatory budget provisions and breached the state's financial policies.
Petitioners, including Kerala Students' Union (KSU) president Aloshious Xavier, argued it was a disguised pre-election outreach benefiting the LDF, using public money and party-linked volunteers.
The government order was set aside, effectively quashing the programme; detailed judgment is awaited, but public funds cannot be used for it
The door-to-door outreach initiative, launched in January 2026, was designed to collect public feedback on various welfare schemes implemented by the state government. However, the programme came under judicial scrutiny after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleged that it misused public funds and administrative machinery for political advantage ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. ruled that the government order issued in October 2025 authorizing the programme lacked proper budgetary sanction and failed to comply with mandatory financial rules governing public expenditure.
The court observed that any large-scale initiative involving public funds must strictly adhere to financial discipline, including prior legislative approval and transparent allocation under the state budget. The estimated expenditure for the programme was reported to be around ₹20 crore.
In its judgment, the Bench emphasized that public money cannot be deployed without explicit sanction and procedural compliance, particularly in the run-up to elections, when concerns about neutrality and fairness are heightened.
The ‘Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme’ had envisioned government representatives and officials visiting households across the state to gather responses regarding welfare delivery, grievances, and suggestions. While the LDF government defended the initiative as a participatory governance exercise, critics argued that it effectively functioned as a political outreach campaign funded by taxpayers.
The court’s decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the state government, not only halting the programme but also reinforcing judicial scrutiny over executive spending in politically sensitive periods.
