[Cites 20, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Aloshious Xavier vs State Of Kerala on 17 February, 2026
W.P(PIL)s. 4 & 8/2026 -:1:-
2026:KER:13939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(PIL) NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
MUBAS M.H., AGED 28 YEARS,
SON OF HASSAN M.K., MULADAN HOUSE,
ASHAMANNOOR P.O, ODAKALY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683549.
BY ADVS. SRI. YESHWANTH SHENOY,
SRI. ANOOP V. NAIR
SMT. SHARANNYA P.
SRI. ATHUL P.
SMT. C.A. BEEMA BEEVI
SMT. FERRA A. THANKAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
KERALA FINANCE DEPARTMENT, MAIN BLOCK,
FIRST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 373, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
3 THE SPECIAL SECRETARY,
PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT (I & PRD),
SOUTH BLOCK, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001.
W.P(PIL)s. 4 & 8/2026 -:2:-
2026:KER:13939
4 THE SECRETARY,
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
5 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E AUDIT)
AG'S OFFICE COMPLEX, CANTONMENT STATION RD, STATUE,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-, PIN - 695001.
*6 M. V. GOVINDAN, S/O. K. KUNJAMBU,
SECRETARY OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST),
THE KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE,
AKG CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
* [IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/01/2026
IN I.A 1/26 IN WP(PIL)]
BY SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
ASSISTED BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT. VINITHA B.,
SRI. N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY.
R6 BY ADV. SRI. T.B. HOOD,
BY ADVS. SMT. M. ISHA,
SMT. SHIYON BIJU.
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, ALONG WITH WP(PIL). NO.8/2026, THE COURT
ON 17.02.2026 DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(PIL)s. 4 & 8/2026 -:3:-
2026:KER:13939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(PIL) NO. 8 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
ALOSHIOUS XAVIER, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/. K.S. XAVIER, KANNATTU HOUSE, VALARA. P.O,
12TH MILE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561.
BY ADVS. SMT. TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN
SMT. ASHIKA JOSHY
SMT. AMRUTHA SELVARAJ
SRI. JAIN JAISON MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 CONTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF KERALA
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
3 THE SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
STATE OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
W.P(PIL)s. 4 & 8/2026 -:4:-
2026:KER:13939
5 THE SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
*6 THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE,
COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), AKG CENTRE,
A.RAGHAVAN ROAD, THIRUVAVANTHAPURAM.
* [IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/01/2026
IN I.A 1/26 IN WP(PIL)]
BY BY SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL,
ASSISTED BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT. VINITHA B.,
SRI. N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY.
R6 BY ADV. SRI. T. B. HOOD
BY ADVS. SMT. M. ISHA
SMT. SHIYON BIJU
THIS WRIT PETITION (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, ALONG WITH WP(PIL). NO.4/2026, THE COURT
ON 17.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(PIL)s. 4 & 8/2026 -:5:-
2026:KER:13939
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2026
Soumen Sen, C.J.
Whether a political party should be the face of the
Government and influence the Government in designing its
events to suit the political needs of the party, and whether, in the
process of implementing such policies, the utilisation of the
public exchequer without sanction under the Rules of Business
can be justified, are the issues raised in this Public Interest
Litigation (PIL).
2. Since common questions concerning the 'Nava Keralam
'New Kerala' - Citizen Response Programme' (herein after referred
to as the 'Nava Keralam Programme'), implemented by the State
through its Information and Public Relations Department, arise
for consideration in both these Public Interest litigations, they are
heard and disposed of together.
3. Petitioners allege that the Nava Keralam Programme, for
which an amount of around ₹20 Crores has been earmarked for
2026:KER:13939
expenditure, is a political campaign of the ruling party/political
front, masquerading as a Government Programme and that it had
been launched with the singular objective of furthering the
political interests of the ruling political party/Front utilising
public funds at a time when State is in doldrums and the
Legislative Assembly Elections, 2026, are on the anvil.
4. The State, on the other hand, maintains 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. The said programme, according to the State, is an
essential welfare study intended to augment and facilitate the
development measures already undertaken, and thus being a
'Policy matter', is beyond the scope of consideration by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. While W.P(PIL) No.4 of 2026 principally seeks to quash
Exhibit P1 order dated 10.10.2025, issued by the Department of
Information and Public Relations, launching the Nava Keralam
2026:KER:13939
Programme, the prayer in W.P(PIL) No.8 of 2026, inter alia, is to
restrain the respondents from 'misusing public funds for personal
and political gain of the ruling party/front' under the garb of the
selfsame programme. Interim prayers seeking to direct the
Government to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant
to Exhibit P1 order and not to release funds from the public
exchequer/Government treasury to pursue the Nava Keralam
Programme have also been sought.
6. Respondents entered in appearance and filed counter-
affidavits in both the Writ Petitions. The State has also filed an
additional counter-affidavit in response to the petitioners' reply
affidavit. Noting that one among the contentions put forth to
challenge Exhibit P1 order covering the Nava Keralam Programme
was Exhibit P2 letter dated 23.09.2025 issued by the Secretary
of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Kerala State
Committee, and since neither the author of the said document
nor the political party on whose behalf it had been issued had
been arrayed as a party in either of the Writ Petitions, this Court
vide order dated 31.01.2026 permitted the petitioners to carry out
2026:KER:13939
necessary impleadment. Pursuant thereto, the additional 6 th
respondent was impleaded, and he entered in appearance
through counsel. A counter affidavit dated 10.02.2026 has also
been filed by the 6th respondent.
7. We heard Sri. Yeshwanth Shenoy, learned counsel and
Mr. Jain Jaison Mathew, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioners, Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Advocate
General assisted by Smt. Vinitha B., learned Senior Government
Pleader appearing for the State respondents and Sri. T.B. Hood,
learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent.
8. Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.(PIL) No.4 of 2026, assails Exhibit P1 order
concerning Nava Keralam Programme on more than one count.
Firstly, he contends that the additional 6 th respondent - party
secretary had issued Exhibit P2 letter on 23.09.2025, i.e, much
prior to the issuance of Exhibit P1 order dated 10.10.2025 by the
Government. Thus, according to him, the ruling party/front had
an "insider knowledge" of the Nava Keralam Programme and had
been preparing its members/supporters beforehand to flood the
2026:KER:13939
'Volunteer force', thereby turning the said programme into a
party political campaign for the Assembly elections that are on
the anvil.
9. Secondly, Sri. Shenoy submits the use of the 'Samoohya
Sannadha Sena Portal' for selecting volunteers for the
implementation of the Nava Keralam Programme is illegal, as 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. The registration of
volunteers by the said online portal launched by the Kerala State
Disaster Management Authority, according to the learned
counsel, was made in the context of the Okhi Cyclone, the floods
and torrential rains and is not intended to create a force to
conduct a door-to-door feedback collection programme for policy
refinement or to advertise the so-called achievements of the
Government as prelude to elections. The same according to the
learned counsel, is an arbitrary and colourable exercise of power
to score political brownie points.
2026:KER:13939
10. Thirdly, the learned counsel challenges Exhibit P1 order
as violative of the Rules of Business evolved by the Government
of Kerala and thus contradicting the mandates of Article 166 (3)
of the Constitution. The conduct of the Programme under the
Head "Special PR Campaign", he submits, runs contrary to the
Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala. The Programme,
according to the learned counsel, by its very nature and scope,
falls within the purview of the Planning and Economic Affairs
Department and not under the Department of Information and
Public Relations. In Exhibit P1 order, the Nava Keralam
Programme has been evolved as one to be undertaken with the
said Department as Nodal agency authorising the said
Department to utilise ₹20 Crores from the title 2220-01-001-96
under the 'Special PR Campaign'. The learned counsel relied
upon the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
MRF Ltd. v. Manohar Parrikar and Others1 and terms such
inclusion overlooking the Rules of Business Manual as illegal and
done with oblique motives.
11. The fourth and final contention put forth by Sri. Shenoy
1 (2010) 11 SCC 374
2026:KER:13939
concerns the Budgetary allocation made in Exhibit P1 order. It is
submitted that such allocation violates Articles 204 and 205 of
the Constitution, as it does not comply with the mandates therein
that all fund allocation requires prior authorisation from the
Legislature. Insofar as no legislative sanction had been accorded
on the non-budgetary expenditure to be incurred for the Nava
Keralam Programme, it is contended that there has been a gross
violation of the constitutional provisions.
12. Thus, according to Sri. Shenoy, Exhibit P1 order
unequivocally points to the hidden agenda to orchestrate a large-
scale, state-sponsored access of households by officially
implanting the cadres of the ruling party under the legitimising
label of a "social volunteer force" under the garb of implementing
a welfare Programme. The five-tier structure of the Programme,
headed by an official designated by the Government, and
comprising volunteers selected from the Social Volunteer Force
Web Portal, who as per Exhibit P2 shall be LDF supporters is,
according to the learned counsel, a tailor-made mechanism to
disseminate party propaganda on behalf of the ruling party/ front
2026:KER:13939
and contradicts the Rules of Business of the Government of
Kerala. The design and implementation of the Programme, which,
according to the learned counsel, further has the propensity to
invade the citizens' right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution, are also put forth. The Programme is thus
termed by the learned counsel as a pre-electoral data harvesting
and voter outreach conducted by the ruling political party at the
expense of public funds. He thus seeks to quash Exhibit P1 order
and pray for a direction to keep in abeyance all further
proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 order and not to release
funds from the public exchequer/Government treasury to pursue
the Programme.
13. The learned Advocate General Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup
vehemently refuted the contentions of the petitioners based on
the affidavits filed and, at the threshold, raised a maintainability
question, pointing out that the locus standi of the petitioners is
non-existent or precarious. As regards the contentions based on
Exhibit P2 letter issued by the Secretary of a political party, it is
submitted by the learned Advocate General that the letter and its
2026:KER:13939
contents are totally inconsequential and irrelevant while
challenging a Government Order or programme, and that the
Government cannot be called upon to explain its programmes,
basing on a circular issued by a Political party to its own cadres.
14. As regards the allegation that the 'Samoohya Sannadha
Sena Portal' used for selecting volunteers for the implementation
of Exhibit P1 Programme, being not suited for implementation of
the Nava Keralam Programme, it is submitted by the learned
Advocate General that the said portal was established as early as
2021 onwards by the Government through Exhibit R1(c)
Government Order dated 01.01.2020. The volunteers registered
therein are called in for various activities like disaster
management, epidemic management, house door service delivery
and palliative care. The 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 therein or not, and the portal is a
continuing mechanism for the development of the State of Kerala.
No volunteers are excluded, and all enrolled volunteers continue
2026:KER:13939
to be retained and recognised within the platform. Not even an
allegation has been put forth in the Writ Petitions that any person
had been denied registration in the portal or that he or she had
been refused permission to participate as a volunteer in the Nava
Keralam Programme after registration in the portal. The
volunteers have been requested to indicate whether they are
interested in the activity as part of Nava Keralam Programme, and
if so inclined, they are permitted to participate without any
remuneration. The contention that the Programme envisaged vide
Exhibit P1 order cannot be implemented through volunteers
registered under 'Samoohya Sannadha Sena Portal' is thus
unsustainable, submits the learned Advocate General.
15. As regards the alleged violation of the mandates in
Article 166(3) of the Constitution, it is submitted by the learned
Advocate General that the business of the Government of a State
is to be transacted in conformity with the Rules of Business
framed in the said respect and matters requiring Cabinet
decisions are specifically enumerated in Schedule II of the Rules
of Business of the Government of Kerala. Exhibit P1 Nava
2026:KER:13939
Keralam Programme has on 08.10.2025 duly received the
approval of the Cabinet and the contention that there has been a
violation of Article 166(3) it is submitted, is thus unsustainable.
16. With respect to budgetary allocation, it is submitted by
the learned Advocate General that the procedure relating thereto,
as well as regarding additional authorisation and control of
expenditure are governed by the Kerala Budget Manual. Reliance
is placed on paragraphs 69, 70, 71 and 72 of the Kerala Budget
Manual and it is submitted that the proposal for additional
authorization was moved with the concurrence of the Finance
Department and expenditure has been incurred only and when
funds are made available by the Finance Department. It is
submitted that the Nava Keralam Programme, having received
duly envisaged cabinet approval, administrative sanction as well
as financial sanction and since all procedures under the Budget
Manual and Financial Code have been followed, there has been
no illegality or financial impropriety either in the program or in its
approval or implementation.
17. The learned Advocate General further proceeds to justify
2026:KER:13939
the need and necessity of the Nava Keralam Programme and
submits that as per Exhibit P1 order, it has been decided to be
organised from 1st January to 28th February 2026 with the
objective of collating ideas/recommendations for development,
seeking opinion about development/welfare programs, conducting
planning for realising development by understanding development
needs and gathering suggestions to make welfare measures more
effective. After receiving cabinet approval for the programme,
Government Orders dated 10.10.2025 (Exhibit P1) and
25.10.2025 [Exhibit R1(a)] had been issued, granting
administrative approval to the same. The Government had also
issued Exhibit R1(b) Proceedings dated 06.11.2025 detailing the
tentative budgets under various heads, which are not challenged
in the Writ Petitions. The Programme it is submitted, was being
implemented transparently, utilising the service of members of
the 'Social Volunteer Force' from the web portal constituted as per
Exhibit R1(c) dated 01.01.2020 to assist in natural disasters in
the state and to help any local crisis. There is no political
interference in the state-wide study, and the Writ Petitions lack
even a prima facie allegation or material to substantiate that the
2026:KER:13939
recruitment of volunteers is politically coloured. The call for
registration as volunteers was and is open to all, and no selection
is made on any party affiliation basis. The programme is to
collect opinions and suggestions for the development of Kerala,
and no campaign is intended. No political party messages are
given, and no mention of any political party is made. Hence, it is
submitted by the learned Advocate General that there is no
violation of the rights of citizens under Articles 14 and 21. The
learned Advocate General places reliance upon the dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal
Pradesh & Anr. v. Umed Ram Sharma & Ors. 2, wherein the
question whether, in view of the provisions of Articles 202 to 207
of the Constitution, the High Court had power to issue
prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct
the State Government either to allot any particular sum for
expenditure on account of particular project or to allot amounts
in addition which have already been allotted under the current
financial budget of the State Government and thus to regulate
even the procedure in financial matters of State, which according
2 (1986) 2 SCC 68
2026:KER:13939
to the Government were the exclusive domain of the Legislature
as contained in Articles 202 to 207 of the Constitution was
answered pointing out that the Court must know its limitations in
these fields. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
directed that the High Court may not take any further action and
leave it to the judgment of the priorities and initiative of the
Executive and the Legislature to pursue the matter. It is thus
prayed by the learned Advocate General that the Writ Petitions
are only to be dismissed
18. On behalf of the Party Secretary, ie., the addl. 6 th
respondent, it is submitted by Sri.T.B. Hood, the learned counsel,
that the involvement of the sympathizers of a political party in the
execution of a programme conceived by the Government is
not illegal or prohibited, and that the strategy planned unveiled
by the Information and Public Relations Department for the
period from August 2025 to February 2026, inter alia included
feedback survey by Public Relations Information Service
Management (PRISM) and that the said information was in the
public domain. It is also submitted that there is a substantial
2026:KER:13939
difference in the nomenclature of the Programme mentioned in
Exhibit P1 order and Exhibit P2 letter issued by the Party
Secretary, and that this fact belies the allegation that the program
was conceptualised, coordinated and operationalised in direct
consultation and collaboration with the political party and is not
one carried out independently by the State. He thus prays that
the Writ Petitions may be dismissed with costs.
19. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both
sides in detail and have considered the contentions put forth.
20. We note that in these Writ Petitions, the petitioners seek
to analyse the decision of the Government through the prism of
certain communications made by the respondent-political party,
which culminated in the introduction of Nava Kerala - citizen
response program - Program for Development and welfare
studies, ostensibly to ascertain the conditions of the people and
the implementation of welfare measures. We were persuaded to
open the can and examine the truth behind the introduction of
such a scheme.
21. At the outset, we place on record our initial reluctance
2026:KER:13939
to enter into the business of the Government and into matters
concerning the allocations of funds by the Government to achieve
the object of its various development schemes unless the same
are starkly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of constitutional
or legal mandates. The facts and circumstances under which the
present W.Ps are filed, the timing and chronology of the events, as
well as the fact that the matter involves crores of rupees from the
public exchequer, lead us to believe that a closer scrutiny of the
allegations made is necessitated.
22. As regards the locus standi of the Petitioners, we note
that a general public cause of importance has been raised by the
petitioners who are citizens, and that the mandates with respect
to locus are sufficiently met, rendering the cause put forth fit to
be raised by the petitioners. As regards the contention that the
subject matter falls within the policy realm and is thus beyond
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, we note that
though generally economic policy matters are seldom subjected to
writs, it is open to this Court to examine at the threshold whether
the subject matter falls within the said realm and even if it is
2026:KER:13939
found so, whether the same is affected by the vice of
arbitrariness, unreasonableness, violation of fundamental rights
and/or violation of statutory provisions. Since it is the specific
case of the petitioners that Exhibit P1 order has been issued to
expend ₹20 Crores of public funds in violation of law and relevant
norms, especially the rules of the Business of Government of
Kerala, at a time when elections are knocking at the door, we
deem it proper to entertain these Writ Petitions and to examine
the contentions put forth.
23. The State justifies its actions based on a cabinet
decision taken for allotment of ₹20 Crores ostensibly to
undertake development and welfare study intended to collect
information and suggestions from the public relating to the
development and welfare initiatives. It has been strenuously
argued on behalf of the State that participation in a programme is
totally voluntary, no remuneration is being paid or no personal
data is collected. The assertion that the programme is connected
with the electoral activities is without factual or legal basis. Since
the foundational basis of the Writ Petitions appears to be the
2026:KER:13939
alleged disclosure of inside information by the Cabinet to the
concerned political party--namely, that the State Government
would be organising a survey to gather detailed opinions on
development and welfare schemes, and that the "New Kerala
Karma Sena" was being formed to organise the said service, titled
the Nava Keralam Vikasana Survey (New Kerala Development and
Welfare Survey)--supporters of the said political party who were
willing to work on a voluntary basis, either officially or
unofficially, were to be recruited for the Karma Sena from 1
October 2025 to 1 March 2026.
24. We had impleaded the said political party to enable it to
file an affidavit stating as to whether the newspaper reports and
other documents produced by the petitioner, which preceded the
announcement of the scheme, were true and correct. The affidavit
filed by the addl. 6th respondent party Secretary, we note is
sketchy, in which the veracity and authenticity of the contents of
the documents, admittedly preceding the announcement of the
scheme, have been intentionally overlooked or evasively denied.
The statements made therein are by and large only repetitions of
2026:KER:13939
the stand taken by the State Government in its various affidavits.
25. The Writ Petition has disclosed a letter (Exhibit P2)
which, inter alia, calls on party affiliates to participate in the
Programme to be launched by the Government and to ensure that
the LDF supporters who are willing to work voluntarily, either
officially or unofficially, are recruited to the 'Karma Sena'
(Volunteer force) from October 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026. The
said letter also instructs the party members to urgently register
on the 'Social Volunteer Force' web portal and to coordinate with
the Programme and states that the party's own list of volunteers
was to be finalised by 30.09.2025. It stands unrefuted that even
before Exhibit P1 order dated 10.10.2025, laying out the
schedule, conduct and objectives of the Programme had been
issued, the party had issued Exhibit P2 letter on 23.09.2025.
26. The order Exhibit P1 has been issued by the 3 rd
respondent, Special Secretary to the Information and Public
Relations Department, stating that the said Department has been
authorised to utilise ₹20 Crores from the title 2220-01-001-96
'Special PR Campaign' for implementation of the Programme. The
2026:KER:13939
Programme, as contended by the State in its counter affidavit and
reply, is primarily intended as a welfare study for data collection
to ascertain the effectiveness of development and welfare
schemes. In the reply affidavit, it has been further contended that
the Department of Information and Public Relations, having been
specifically allocated with matters relating to Public
communication, Public outreach, Feedback mechanisms,
Community listening and Citizen Management, the Programme
squarely falls within such allocated business, and the said
Department is, therefore, fully competent to implement the
program.
27. The Government, in a welfare State, undoubtedly has
the power to undertake welfare measures and to devise
programmes to reach out to the people in order to gather the
responses of citizens with regard to the welfare measures
undertaken. One cannot find out any fault with the exercise of
such power. The Rules of Business, insofar as the budgetary
allocation is concerned, would also demonstrate that the
Government under the Document No.23 - Information and
2026:KER:13939
Publicity, is entitled to spend about ₹4.60 Crores under the sub-
major and minor heads "Special Public Relations Campaign". It
assumes relevance to examine the relevant entries in the Rules of
the Business of Government of Kerala to appreciate the inter se
contentions put forth by the parties.
28. The Rules of the Business of Government of Kerala
(Amended as on 31.01.2025), in its Schedule, enumerates the
following businesses as assigned to the Information and Public
Relations Department:
"1. Advertisement policy and issue of government advertisements?
2. Community listening scheme.
3. Establishment papers relating to Public Relations Department
and District Information Officers.
4. Issue of press releases.
5. Organisation and control of radio rural forums.
6. Organisation of and participation of exhibitions.
7. Participation in Republic Day celebrations at New Delhi.
8. Repress and registration of POCSO Act.
9. Production and distribution of pamphlets and other publicity
materials? 10. Publication of monthly journal Janabatham.
11. Publication and photographic coverage.
2026:KER:13939
12. Running of information Center at State Capital and supply of
general information to public.
13. Scrutiny of newspapers and periodicals.
14. Tagore Theatre, Kerala media Academy.
15. Journalist Accreditation, Health Insurance Schemes for
Journalists and Non Journalist Pension and Membership,
Internship"
[Emphasis added]
29. Similarly, as regards the Planning and Economic Affairs
Department, the Schedule to the Rules of the Business of
Government of Kerala enumerates the following business under
the sub-title 'Planning':
"A. Planning
1. Department of Economics and Statistics
2. Database and digitisation of data for Planning
3. Computerisation for planning, plan monitoring and computer
based data system including State and District Informatic Centres
4. Economic and financial policy issues including Centre State
financial relations
5. Economic Survey and studies for preparing the Survey
including study of the State and Central budget and
preparation of yearly review on the level of taxation and
related matters
6. N.D.C. and its committees
7. Formulation of Development Plans, Perspective Plans, Five
Year Plans and Annual Plans
8. Integration of physical, economic, social and environmental
planning
9. Examination of schemes/projects to be included in the plans
2026:KER:13939
10. Plan resources and mobilisation
11. Monitoring and evaluation of plan programmes
12. Multilevel Planning State, District, Block and local levels
13. Manpower and Employment Planning
14. District Development Council
15. Projects, measures for improving projects formulation,
project analysis and appraisal
16. State Planning Board
17. Western Ghats and Special Area Programme - Co-ordination of
work and scrutinising of schemes and projects
18. State Land Use Board and Centre for Land Use and
Environment Studies
19. Monitoring and evaluation of Special Component Plan and
Tribal Sub Plan
20. Co-ordination, implementation and monitoring of all NITI
Ayog initiatives.
21. Design and incorporation of State of art methods and
processes into the planning and its Implementation.
22. District Development Council and monitoring projects
through District Development Commissioners.
23. Vision Varkala Infrastructure Development (VIVIVD)
Corporation Ltd.
24. Keala Development and Innnovation Strategic Council (K-
DISCI)"
30. As regards the Programme Implementation, Evaluation
and Monitoring Department, the Schedule to the Rules of the
Business of Government of Kerala enumerates the following
business:
"1. Monitoring and evaluation of all infrastructure projects PPP and
non-PPP including priority projects.
2. Implementation and monitoring of Sustainable Development
Goals SDGs.
2026:KER:13939
3. Monitoring of all missions of Nava Keralam Karma
Padthathi and such missions announced by the Government.
4. Preparation of performance indices of various departments,
Government agencies and district offices based on effectiveness of
programme and project implementation.
5. Designing incentives for encouraging performance in programme
and project implementation of departments, government agencies
and district offices.
6. Inducting professional management services and resources for
programme and project implementation.
7. District Development Commissioners."
31. It is thus discernible from the Rules of allocation of
Business to various Departments that the matters like, Database
for Planning, Formulation of Development Plans, Perspective
Plans, Monitoring and Evaluation of Planned Programs, Project
Measures for Improving Projects, Project analysis and appraisal,
etc., most of which could be related to the purpose of Exhibit P1
order falls squarely within the allocated business of the
Department for Planning and Economic Affairs and the
monitoring of all missions of Nava Keralam Karma Padthathi and
such missions announced by the Government fall within the
allocated business of the Programme Implementation, Evaluation
and Monitoring Department. Even as per the counter-affidavit of
2026:KER:13939
the State, the objective of Exhibit P1 order is to collect ideas,
opinions and suggestions, to study the opinions to make welfare
schemes efficient, and to form public opinion on employment and
development projects and all of the same, fall squarely 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 ₹20 Crores
is found to have been allocated.
32. Exhibit P1 order which inter alia stipulates the
approving of the Information and Public Relations Department as
the Nodal Office of the program and to allot ₹20 Crores for the
conduct of the Programme under the Head "Special PR
Campaign" thus runs contrary to the Rules of Business of the
Government of Kerala. The Nava Keralam Programme, the
proclaimed object of which is to collect ideas, opinions, and
suggestions from the people to realise the goal of 'Nava Keralam',
to study the opinions on making the development and welfare
schemes presently implemented more effective, to seek opinions
2026:KER:13939
on whether the development and welfare schemes are available in
all areas as per the requirements, and to form public opinion on
new employment opportunities/development schemes, thus
ought to have been a programme under the Planning and
Economic Affairs Department/the Programme Implementation,
Evaluation and Monitoring Department. However, the same had
been brought under a sub-head of Information & Public Relations
Department by putting it under the 'Community listening
Scheme' apparently to enable an easy allocation under the
convenient Special PR Campaign head.
33. Though a contention has been put forth on behalf of the
State that 'Community listening scheme' is a business that falls
within the Department of Information Public Relations, and that
the Programme covered vide Exhibit P1 order would thus fall
within the ambit of the said business, the said argument cannot
be countenanced in view of the very evident and express
businesses set apart for the 'Planning and Economic Affairs
Department'/Programme implementation, Evaluation &
Monitoring Department, within which the purported mandates of
2026:KER:13939
Exhibit P1 squarely fall. It is trite, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of MRF Ltd. (supra), that compliance
with the rules of business framed under Article 166(3), especially
where public finance is involved, is mandatory and goes to the
root of executive decision-making.
34. M.R.F. Ltd. (supra) had also considered the earlier
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Chitralekha v.
State of Mysore3 and observed that the said decision cannot be
relied upon to support the contention that the Rules of Business
framed under clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India
are merely directory. The decision in R. Chitralekha (supra) was
rendered in the context of interpretation of Articles 166(1) and
166(2) and, therefore, would not be applicable.
35. The debate as to whether the decision of the Chief
Minister constitutes the decision of the Cabinet and that there
can be no Cabinet de hors the Chief Minister and whether Article
166(3) of the Constitution is merely an enabling provision
incapable of being mandatory, has been set at rest by the
decision in M.R.F. Ltd. (supra).
3 AIR 1964 SC 1823
2026:KER:13939
36. In a subsequent decision in Narmada Bachao
Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh4, the views expressed in
R. Chitralekha (supra) and M.R.F. Ltd. (supra) were considered
and it was observed as follows:
"We have considered the larger Bench judgment of
this Court in R. Chitralekha (supra) and taken note of
the fact that MRF Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable from
the case at hand since that case dealt with rules
pertaining to financial implications for which there
were no provisions in the Appropriation Act, and so
the rules required mandatory compliance. Here, there
is no issue of financial repercussions. The issue here
is whether the Council of Ministers is permitted to
delegate the power to amend its decision to a
Committee of Ministers consisting of the Ministers in
charge of the Departments concerned and the Chief
Minister, and whether such amendment needs to be
consistent with the Rules of Business framed under
Art.166 of the Constitution of India. The case law
provides that delegation is permissible and that Rules
of Business are directory in nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
37. The contention that Cabinet Approval had been received
on 08.10.2025 pursuant to which Exhibit P1 and subsequently
4 (2011) 12 SCC 333
2026:KER:13939
Exhibits R1(a) and (b) orders dated 25.10.2025 and 06.11.2025
had been issued, setting apart ₹20 Crores and detailing the
tentative budgets under various heads for meeting the expenses
of the Program, are not explanations sufficient to validate the
incurable lack of authority and jurisdiction. As laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.R.F. Ltd. (supra) compliance with
the rules of business framed under Article 166(3), especially
where public finance is involved, is mandatory and prior approval
of the cabinet or post facto justification, administrative
explanation or executive endorsement, as seen vide Exhibit R1(b)
order, will not cure the inherent defect. Exhibit P1 order to the
extent it authorises the Information and Public Relations
Department to utilise ₹20 Crores under the relevant title and
head 'Special PR campaign for implementation of the Nava Kerala
Citizens Response Programme' is inherently flawed and
unsustainable for the very evident violations of the Rules of
allocation of Business and concomitant Budget allocation.
38. In the instant case, before we hold us back to the
arguments as to whether the Cabinet was justified in approving
an amount far in excess of the funds earmarked in the budget,
2026:KER:13939
the larger issue seems to be the purpose for which the State fund
is sought to be utilised. Admittedly, this exercise was not
undertaken earlier and issued near to the declaration of assembly
elections. Moreover, the portal through which the applications are
invited for the selection of Karma Sena was not intended for the
purpose for which the present exercise is sought to be carried
out. The portal was created on 1 January 2020 by the General
Administration Department for the purpose of forming a social
volunteer force to provide assistance during national disasters in
the State and to extend help in any local crisis. The relevant
portion of the order which forms the basis of creating the said
portal are as follows:
"In the last 3 years, Kerala has faced repeated
natural disasters. Cyclone Okki, the 2018 floods, the
2019 torrential rains and widespread landslides
have resulted in the loss of many precious lives,
livelihoods of the people, and the loss of
infrastructure across the country. We have to find
ways to reduce the severity of disasters and survive.
In this regard, along with the opinions of experts and
measures to identify and implement environmentally
friendly lifestyles, an effective disaster response
system needs to be organised. As part of this, in
addition to providing assistance in natural disasters,
a social volunteer force will be formed to help in any
local crisis, as follows."
2026:KER:13939
39. Presently, the State is not faced with any such natural
disaster or any local crises. It is in the nature of a survey for the
collection of the data by a procedure which has already indicated
in several communications and circulars issued by the political
party concerned to all the district committees for information.
The existence of the said circular, much before the introduction of
the New Kerala Scheme, cannot be disputed.
40. As regards Budgetary allocation, the learned Advocate
General had submitted that an additional allocation of around
₹14 Crores made to the Information and Public Relations
Department in excess of ₹4.6 Crores already allotted to the same
Department, does not require prior sanction of the Legislature
and it would suffice if in the course of the current financial year,
the same is brought to the notice of the Legislature and an
approval post expenditure is obtained. In this context, it is
relevant to note that Article 203 of the Constitution relating to
procedure in Legislature with respect to estimates in Sub-Article
(2) stipulates that so much of the said estimates as relate to other
expenditure shall be submitted in the form of demands of grants
2026:KER:13939
to the Legislative Assembly, and the Legislative Assembly shall
have power to assent or refuse to assent to any demand or to
assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount
specified therein. It is also relevant to note that Article 204
relating to appropriation of bills in Sub-Article (3) stipulates that,
subject to the provisions of Articles 205 and 206, no money shall
be withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund of the State, except
under appropriation made by law passed in accordance with the
provisions of the said Article. It is also relevant to note that Article
205 of the Constitution relating to Supplementary, Additional or
Excess Grants in Sub Article (1) mandates that,-
"The Governor shall,
(a) if the amount authorized by any law made in
accordance with the provisions of Article 204 to be
expended for a particular service for the current
financial year is found to be insufficient for the
purpose of that year, or when a need has arisen
during the current financial year for supplementary or
additional expenditure upon some new service not
contemplated in the annual financial statement for
that year, or
(b) If any money has been spent on any service
during a financial year in excess of the amount
granted for that service and for that year, caused to
be laid before the House or the House of the
Legislature of the State Another statement showing
2026:KER:13939
the estimated amount of that expenditure or caused
to be presented to the Legislative Assembly of the
State demand for such excess, as the case may be."
41. It is relevant to note here that the Kerala Budget
Manual issued by the Government of Kerala on 15.09.1999
elaborates the criteria to be adopted in the matter of treating any
item of expenditure as 'new service', which is determined based
on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. It
reads as follows:
"If any new proposal involving expenditure during the
course of a year arises, an important question to be
considered is whether the expenditure has been
contemplated in the annual financial statement or
whether it forms part of a grant voted. If the proposal
is outside the scope of the grants, or if it has been
contemplated in the annual financial statement
presented to the legislature, it is clearly a new service
for which a demand for funds has to be placed before
the legislature. It may in some cases be that extra
expenditure on the new item can be met by savings
within the demand. Still expenditure cannot be
incurred on the item as it will constitute a new service.
And it is necessary that a supplementary demand for
a token sum should be presented before the
legislature. The essence of this requirement is that
without a vote the legislature, money shall not be
spent beyond the scope of the grant sanctioned by the
legislature. "
(Emphasis supplied)
2026:KER:13939
42. When confronted with the fact that 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 by the
Legislature, the learned Advocate General had responded that the
Manual does not have the force of law and its strict compliance
cannot be insisted on.
43. 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.
44. In addition to the fact that amounts are being allotted to
departments overlooking the Rules of Business, we note with
concern that budgetary allocations to Departments are also not
being scrupulously adhered to, and even Rules/norms voluntarily
made to enforce self discipline in fiscal matters, are being given a
go by with alacrity.
2026:KER:13939
45. In addition to the above, we note that the Volunteers for
the Programme are to be chosen from the 'Karma Sena- Social
Volunteer Force' from the web portal constituted as per Exhibit
R1(c) dated 01.01.2020, which was constituted for meeting a
different purpose. The object and purpose of the Nava Keralam
Programme being totally different from that which was intended
to be performed and undertaken by the 'Karma Sena Volunteers'
under Exhibit R1(c) dated 01.01.2020, it was incumbent on the
Government to clarify the same and give wide publicity to the
enlistment of Volunteers specifically for the purpose of carrying
out the object of the said programme under Exhibit P1 order. The
counter affidavit and reply filed by the State do not reveal any
steps taken in the said direction towards facilitating wide
publicity for the volunteer enlisting process under Exhibit P1
order, whereas the alleged selective leaking of information to the
party cadre based on Exhibit P2 letter gives apparent credence to
the allegations of oblique motives.
46. As regards the Budget allocation, we find merit in the
contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners
2026:KER:13939
that such allocation generally cannot supersede or override, the
specific Rules of Business and that funds cannot be allocated to a
Department for a purpose specifically assigned under the Rules of
Business to another Department, as the same would entail and
violation of the established administrative framework. Read along
with the mandatory Rules of business as explained above, the
allocation of ₹20 Crores under the head 'Special PR campaign' to
the Department of Information, Public Relations, for a business
that essentially falls within the business of the Planning and
Economic Affairs Department. Programme Implementation,
Evaluation and Monitoring Department does indeed point to a
colourable exercise of executive power as alleged by the
petitioners.
47. The learned Advocate General, in relying upon the
decision in Umed Ram Sharma (supra), possibly wants to
remind us that, in the Indian Constitution, the Council of
Ministers is "a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens, the
legislative part of the State to the executive part". It is contended
that the decision of the Cabinet to spend on any service,
2026:KER:13939
including a new service not contemplated in the annual financial
statement for that year, is entirely in the domain of the Cabinet
and that the Court should draw inspiration from "consecrated
principles" of not entering into the wisdom of the Cabinet to incur
additional expenditure for the service for Special PR (Public
Relations) Programme. The Cabinet knows best the needs of the
people.
48. In the instant case, the purported decision of the
Cabinet was neither placed before the Legislature, though the
Legislature was in session at the relevant time, nor it was even
placed subsequently for its consideration. The Cabinet cannot
proceed on the assumption that its decision involving additional
expenditure would ultimately be approved by the Legislature.
The procedure to be followed in financial matters have been
discussed in Articles 202 to 207 of the Constitution of India. The
Ministers constituting the Cabinet act on the principle of
collective responsibility and the most important questions of
policy are all formulated by them under Article 202 of the
Constitution of India.
2026:KER:13939
49. The sums required for carrying on the business are
entered in the annual financial statement which the Ministry has
to lay before the House or Houses of Legislature in respect of
every financial year under Article 202 of the Constitution. So
much of the estimates as relate to expenditure other than those
charged on the Consolidated Fund are submitted in the form of
demands for grants to the Legislature and the Legislature has the
power to assent or refuse to assent to any such demand or assent
to a demand subject to reduction of the amount (Article 203).
After the grant is sanctioned, an Appropriation Bill is introduced
to provide for the appropriation out of the Consolidated Fund of
the State of all moneys required to meet the grants thus made by
the Assembly (Article 204). As soon as the Appropriation Act is
passed, the expenditure made under the heads covered by it
would be deemed to be properly authorised by law under Article
266 (3) of the Constitution.
50. We deem it relevant also to note that the proclaimed
objective of Exhibit P1 order and the Programme being one in the
nature of a welfare study for data collection to ascertain the
2026:KER:13939
effectiveness of the various development and welfare schemes
undertaken by the Government over the past nearly a decade,
most of which have specific targets and objectives, it begs the
question whether such a complex exercise could have been
carried out by the Karma Sena Volunteers under Exhibit R1(c)
dated 01.01.2020 constituted for a different purpose of meeting
the need of volunteer hands during natural disasters. Prudence
and professionalism may require entrusting such a niche activity
to competent, qualified persons from a specialised governmental
or non-governmental agency that possesses the specialised
knowledge and expertise for assessing the implementation of
development and welfare schemes.
51. We note that the contentions put forth by the Petitioners
based on the Exhibit P2 letter issued by the additional 6 th
respondent Party Secretary cannot be totally brushed aside. The
evasive and non-responsive counter-affidavit filed by the addl. 6 th
respondent, without any tenable explanation as to how the
Exhibit P2 letter came to be issued to its cadres, much before
Exhibit P1 order or even before the cabinet decision
2026:KER:13939
approving the Nava Keralam Programme on 08.10.2025 gives
credence to the allegation that there has been a concerted effort
to covertly use the said programme by enabling the party cadres
to flood the portal while not giving adequate publicity to the fact
that the portal, though created for a different purpose and
requiring a different commitment would be used for the Nava
Keralam Programme.
52. The Government is not debarred from taking any welfare
measures or undertake any development or welfare study
programme like Exhibit P1, however, any expenditure incurred
must have a financial sanction and pass muster the financial
rules. We are not questioning the wisdom of the Cabinet to
undertake such study, but for executing and implementing such
study, funds de hors the financial rules are utilized and such
irregularities if are brought on record, the court has a duty to
declare such utilisation of funds as illegal. This is in addition to
the reservation we expressed in the manner and mode in which
such studies have been undertaken by the Government.
53. Since Exhibit P1 order has been put forth to be carried
2026:KER:13939
out during a narrow window that was available between two
Model codes of conduct, viz., one which preceded the Local Self
Government Department (LSGD) elections of 2025 and the other
soon to be in force as the Legislative elections for 2026 are
around the corner, it is a moot question whether 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 Response Programme envisaged under Exhibit
P1 order carried out, expending multi crore rupees.
54. In view of the above, we find sufficient cause has been
made out to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance all steps
and proceedings initiated pursuant to Exhibit P1 order and not to
proceed any further with the implementation of the Nava
Keralam Programme envisaged under Exhibit P1 order. The
expenditure incurred in implementation of such programme is in
violation of the rules of business. The said amount neither could
have been allocated nor utilised under the special PR campaign
head being not permitted under the rules of business.
Consequently, Exhibit P1 order dated 10.10.2025 to the extent it
2026:KER:13939
authorises the Information and Public Relations Department to
utilise ₹20 Crores from the title 2220-01-001-96 'Special PR
Campaign' is hereby set aside. Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b) orders
issued in furtherance of Exhibit P1 are also set aside.
The Writ Petitions (PIL) are allowed.
Sd/-
SOUMEN SEN,
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.,
JUDGE
2026:KER:13939
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL) NO. 4 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. S.U (K) NO.
13/2025/I&PD DATED 10.10.2025, ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION PUBLIC RELATIONS (C),
ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING P.C.P CHIT
NUMBER 63/2025, DATED 23.09.2025, AND ISSUED BY THE
STATE COMMITTEE OF COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA
(MARXIST), ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 09.11.2025
PUBLISHED IN MANORAMA ONLINE AT 9:46 AM BY SUJITH
NAIR.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.12.2024 BY KUMAR
SAMBHAV PUBLISHED IN ALJAZEERA.COM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2023 IN WP(C)
NO. 39668/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RULES OF BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA PART II FIRST SCHEDULE OBTAINED FROM THE
OFFICIAL SITE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BUDGETARY
SPEECH 2025-26 BY THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF FINANCE
DATED 07.02.2025.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL BROCHURE OF THE NAVA
KERALA CITIZEN RESPONSE PROGRAMME, RETRIEVED FROM
THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE, ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF G.0.(MS) NO.167/2025/I AND PRD DATED
25.10.2025 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. C1/412/2025/1 AND PR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.11.2025 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
2026:KER:13939
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF G.O NO. 01/2020/GAD DATED 1.1.2020,
ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
2026:KER:13939
APPENDIX OF WP(PIL) NO. 8 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED BY ASIANET
NEWS ONLINE PORTAL DATED 07.10.2025.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN KAUMUDI ONLINE.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN INDIAN VARTHA.
EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN MADHYAMAM ONLINE
ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN DECCAN CHRONICLES
ONLINE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORT IN MANORAMA BY JOURNALIST
SUJITH NAIR DATED 09.11.2025.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORTS OF CRITICISM TOWARDS THE
SURVEY IN NEW INDIAN EXPRESS DATED 10.11.2025.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORTS OF CRITICISM TOWARDS THE
SURVEY IN THE WEEK DAILY DATED 1.1.2026.
EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF NEWS REPORTS OF CRITICISM TOWARDS THE
SURVEY IN THE WEEK DAILY DATED 1.1.2026.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CABINET DECISION OF THE CABINET OF
MINISTER AS AVAILABLE ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE
CHIEF MINISTER OF THE STATE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF 'ECONOMIC REVIEW 2024' BY THE KERALA
STATE PLANNING BOARD.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF OVERVIEW OF THE REPORT OF WORKING
GROUP ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE UNDER THE
SOCIAL SERVICES DIVISION OF THE KERALA STATE
PLANNING BOARD OF THE STATE AS AVAILABLE ON THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KERALA STATE PLANNING BOARD.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBERED G.O(M.S)
NO. 145/2021/LSGD AND DATED 16.07.2021 ALONG WITH
2026:KER:13939
ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RECORDS OF THE 11TH SESSION OF THE
15TH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF KERALA, UPON THE NON-
STARRED QUESTION NO. 4194 RAISED BY SHRI. P. K.
BASHEER MLA, AND ANSWERED BY SHRI. M. B RAJESH,
RESPECTED MINISTER OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT AND EXCISE ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA IN MC MEHTA V. KAMAL NATH DATED
13.12.1996 AND REPORTED IN (1997) 1 SCC 388.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA IN COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA
DATED 23.04.2014 IN WP(C) NO.13 OF 2003 AND REPORTED
IN (2014) 6 SCC 552.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. C1/412/2025/I AND PR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 06.11.2025 ALONG WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO. 167/2025/I AND PRD DATED
25.10.2025 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF G.0 NO. 01/2020/GAD DATED 1.1.2020 ALONG
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO C.J.
