Telangana HC Directs Finance Secretary to Detail State Debt and Welfare Spending

The Telangana High Court in Hyderabad on Thursday directed the principal secretary of the Telangana finance department to file a detailed counter-affidavit explaining the state's debt accumulation, particularly regarding the funding of large welfare schemes, and its compliance with the Telangana State Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2005.

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar issued the directions while hearing a petition that challenged the legal basis for implementing the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The judge observed that it was necessary to examine the debts incurred to implement large welfare programmes after noting that an earlier affidavit filed by the state government contained no remarks on its outstanding debt.

Expressing concern over delayed salary payments to staff working across various courts in Mahbubnagar district, as well as multiple pending cases related to unpaid government bills and land acquisition compensation, Justice Shravan Kumar remarked that "danger bells are ringing." The court emphasised that the state government must balance welfare expenditure with its statutory duties and other financial obligations.

During the proceedings, Additional Advocate-General Md Imran Khan urged the bench to consider an interim application filed by the state seeking to vacate an earlier stay on government orders relating to the Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes. The interim stay had been granted on August 12 due to delays by the government in submitting its affidavit.

Addressing the issue of unpaid compensation to individuals whose land was acquired for state infrastructure projects, the Additional Advocate-General informed the bench that token numbers had been issued by the finance department and the funds would be released shortly.

The court also scrutinised a counter-affidavit submitted by the principal secretary of the backward classes welfare department on behalf of the state. Justice Shravan Kumar noted that Article 162 of the Constitution had been incorrectly reproduced in the document. After the Additional Advocate-General submitted that the error was unintentional, the judge directed the department to file a fresh counter-affidavit.

The High Court adjourned the matter for further hearing to August 24.