Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Saturday criticized the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government for its lack of transparency regarding the utilisation of the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF). The rebuke comes months after the Wayanad landslide in July, which devastated four villages and left many awaiting relief.
During a suo motu hearing, the Court questioned the state government on why it had failed to provide clear details about SDRF utilisation. Reports indicated that ₹677 crore remained in the fund, yet the government was unable to specify how much was available for immediate disaster relief. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with this lack of clarity, pointing out that no progress could be made in securing additional central funds without a clear breakdown of state-level expenditures.
The High Court remarked that the inability to provide basic details about fund availability undermines the state's requests for additional financial aid. It also criticised the delay in addressing the aftermath of the landslide, highlighting that it had been five months since the disaster and people's needs had yet to be prioritised. The Court stressed that such delays violate the principles of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life, and directed the government to submit a comprehensive report on SDRF utilisation by Thursday.
The issue has also sparked political tension. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had earlier criticised the Kerala government for not submitting a detailed damage assessment to the Centre. In response, the state government blamed the Centre for delays in sanctioning a special relief package for Wayanad. However, the Congress-led opposition accused both the Centre and the state government of failing to act swiftly after the disaster.
State BJP President K. Surendran also weighed in, accusing the state government and the opposition of deflecting responsibility. He said that the lack of accountability and clarity at the state level was the real issue, rather than delays from the Centre.
The High Court has made it clear that further action, including additional funding requests, hinges on the state's ability to clarify its use of existing resources.
With IANS inputs