New Delhi, February 24 In a relief to the LDF government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the Kerala High Court's decision to overturn an order authorizing ₹20 crore for the Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme.
This paved the way for the continuation of the scheme, as a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the respondents, including the petitioners before the high court, while taking note of the state government's appeal.
The state government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said that "not a single paisa" has been paid to CPI(M) workers in the state.
The Chief Justice said that prima facie, there was nothing wrong if the state government takes help of government employees in ascertaining the impact of welfare schemes at the ground.
The counsel for the respondents alleged that the government is taking help of its employees and the party workers to do the public relation exercises ahead of elections.
On February 17, the high court overturned a government order authorizing ₹20 crore for the Nava Kerala Citizen Response Programme, terming it a "colourable exercise of executive power" and a violation of the Rules of Business.
The high court bench headed by Chief Justice Soumen Sen had expressed concern that budgetary allocations to departments were "not being scrupulously adhered to" and that even rules voluntarily framed to enforce fiscal discipline "were being given a go-by with alacrity".
The court also noted that there was no explanation as to how a letter was issued by CPI(M) state secretary M V Govindan, calling upon party affiliates to participate in the programme and register on the social volunteer force portal, well before the Cabinet decision and government order authorizing the initiative.
These observations came while allowing separate pleas filed by Mubas M H, a Kochi resident, and Kerala Students Union (KSU) state president Aloshious Xavier, challenging the programme and the allocation of funds.
The petitioners contended that the government was "misusing public funds for the personal and political gain of the ruling party or front".
Allowing the pleas, the high court noted that the programme had not been undertaken earlier and was launched close to the declaration of Assembly elections.
It held that the order authorizing the utilisation of ₹20 crore by the Information and Public Relations Department was "inherently flawed and unsustainable due to evident violations of the Rules of Allocation of Business and the concomitant budget allocation".