Kochi: A 'premature' letter sent by MV Govindan, state secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), to party workers has emerged as a key factor in the collapse of the LDF government's ambitious Nava Keralam Citizen Response Programme. 

In a scathing judgment on Tuesday, the Kerala High Court quashed the multi-crore survey, citing several grounds. Among them was the early dissemination of the survey plan to party cadres, which the court viewed as a primary indicator that the programme amounted to a "colourable exercise of executive power" that bypassed constitutional mandates and fiscal discipline.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM, while delivering verdict on the  Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed by Perumbavoor resident MH Mubas and KSU State President Aloysius Xavier, observed that the "selective leaking" of details of the programme to the ruling party, weeks before the state cabinet formally approved the order, had effectively transformed what was presented as a welfare study into a transparently political data-harvesting exercise funded by the public exchequer, as alleged by the petitioners.

The court's verdict underscores a critical timeline that the State was unable to satisfactorily explain. This sequence of events effectively transformed the PIL into a successful indictment based on alleged "insider knowledge." Central to the petitioners' case was the 17-day gap between party action and formal government policy. 

On September 23, 2025, CPM State Secretary M V Govindan issued a letter directing party cadres to dominate the volunteer portal. Seventeen days later, on October 10, 2025, the government formally issued the order launching the programme. 

A key pillar of the petitioners' argument was this September 23 circular, which surfaced well before the official government order. The letter allegedly instructed cadres to flood the volunteer portal and finalise a party-specific list of volunteers. The petitioners contended that this demonstrated clear "insider knowledge" and pointed to a concealed agenda to embed party workers into households under the legitimising label of a "social volunteer force."

The court observed that the existence of the circular prior to the scheme's formal introduction "cannot be disputed," thereby weakening the government's defence that the matter fell purely within the domain of policy.

The Bench was particularly critical of Govindan, who was arrayed as the sixth respondent. Describing his counter-affidavit as "evasive and non-responsive," the judges noted that the party had failed to explain how it came into possession of sensitive administrative details before the executive had taken a formal decision. This failure, the court indicated, lent weight to the allegation that the proposed "Social Volunteer Force" was, in effect, a party apparatus operating under the cover of governmental authority. "The alleged selective leaking of information to the party cadre... gives apparent credence to the allegations of oblique motives," the order said.

Another key argument of the petitioners' case was the timing of the initiative, launched just months ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections. They alleged that the government was seeking to deploy ₹20 crore from the public exchequer to finance what was, in effect, a large-scale data-harvesting and voter-outreach exercise for the ruling front.

The state, represented by the Advocate General, sought dismissal of the pleas by terming the survey a "policy matter" beyond judicial scrutiny. It maintained that the programme was a bona fide "development and welfare study" aimed at gathering public feedback to shape future policies. The government denied any electoral motive, asserting that volunteer recruitment was open to all without remuneration and that the "Samoohya Sannadha Sena Portal" was an ongoing mechanism for public participation in governance.

Similarly, M V Govindan argued that political sympathisers participating in government programmes were not unlawful and that his letter merely coordinated a programme already in the public domain.

The court, however, was unsparing in its analysis. While noting its general reluctance to interfere in policy matters, the court held that the "timing and chronology of events," coupled with the involvement of substantial public funds, warranted judicial scrutiny. It recorded a direct violation of the Rules of Business framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, observing that the survey had been placed under the Information and Public Relations Department as a "Special PR Campaign" to ease fund allocation. 

The court pointed out that matters relating to database creation and development planning fall squarely within the domain of the Planning and Economic Affairs Department. In a pointed rebuke, the court said the government's order "runs contrary to the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala," emphasising that compliance with rules framed under Article 166(3), particularly where public finance is involved, is mandatory and foundational to executive decision-making. 

On the fiscal front, the court found that the government had bypassed the Legislative Assembly by allocating funds beyond the sanctioned grant. Citing the Kerala Budget Manual, it reiterated that no expenditure exceeding the legislature's approval can be incurred without a vote. "The cabinet cannot proceed on the assumption that its decision involving additional expenditure would ultimately be approved by the Legislature," the order said. 

The court also questioned the use of the disaster management volunteer portal, originally created in 2020 to respond to natural calamities such as floods and cyclones, for the survey exercise. Noting that the state was not facing any such disaster or local crisis, the court observed that prudence and professionalism would require entrusting such a specialised activity to qualified personnel rather than emergency volunteers. 

In its concluding observations, the court cast doubt on the practicality and intent of undertaking a multi-crore exercise in the narrow window between two elections, asking whether the government would realistically have the time to collate, analyse and implement the findings before the Model Code of Conduct for the 2026 polls came into force.

Ultimately, the HC declared the entire programme legally unsustainable. It held that "any expenditure incurred must have a financial sanction and pass muster under the financial rules," and that if irregularities are established, the court is duty-bound to declare such utilisation of funds illegal. The government's order on the Nava Kerala survey, along with all consequential proceedings, was set aside, and all further steps in connection with the Nava Keralam Citizen Response Programme were directed to be kept in abeyance.

The verdict marks a significant setback for the LDF, halting its pre-election outreach and raising broader questions about constitutional propriety and fiscal transparency, issues that are likely to resonate in the political arena. 

Reacting to the verdict, Aloysius Xavier told Onmanorama that the verdict was "a direct slap on the government's face. Over the last 9 years, the government had done several PR campaigns in the name of social welfare, exploiting the state exchequer. Today's verdict stops yet another PR attempt in the name of welfare," Xavier said.