Telangana HC flags government's 'blunder' over Article 162 in welfare schemes case
The Telangana High Court on Thursday took serious note of a factual error in an affidavit filed by the State government in connection with the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak welfare schemes. Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar observed that Article 162 of the Constitution had been incorrectly quoted in the document submitted to the court.
The scheme, which provides financial assistance to women belonging to minority communities at the time of marriage, is currently under judicial scrutiny. The High Court had earlier stayed its operation, and the government had moved an application seeking vacation of that stay. In the affidavit supporting the plea, B. Bala Maya Devi, Principal Secretary to Government (Full Additional Charge), Backward Classes Welfare Department, stated that the relevant Government Orders were issued under Article 162 of the Constitution to achieve the constitutional goals of social justice. The affidavit further claimed that under this Article, the executive power of a State is completely co-extensive and co-terminus with its legislative competence.
When the judge questioned whether the citation of Article 162 was accurate, Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan conceded that it was a mistake, describing it as a typographical error. He went on to admit that the portion quoted was not merely a mistake but a blunder. Justice Shravan Kumar directed the AAG to file a rectified affidavit at the earliest.
In a related development, the court also sought a status report from the Finance Secretary on the government's decision to take loans for continuing welfare schemes. The judge asked the AAG to explain the government's priorities when it came to discharging statutory obligations, such as paying compensation to land losers, as opposed to funding welfare initiatives. He pointed out that some staff members of the Mahbubnagar court, which is under his administrative charge, had not received salaries for four months.
However, Justice Shravan Kumar clarified that it was not for the courts to interfere with the government's financial management. He observed that the judiciary had to maintain a balance while deciding matters relating to financial administration.
During the hearing, a dispute arose when the petitioner's advocate, Vijay Gopal, read out representations from retired government employees who claimed they had not received post-retirement benefits for several months. The AAG objected to this, arguing that it amounted to making political statements in the open court. In response, the petitioner's counsel contended that the purpose was to highlight how the government's financial commitments to welfare schemes were affecting its ability to meet statutory obligations.
The court has posted the matter for further hearing on Monday.
