Tag Archives: Budget

Revised Kerala Budget: Disciplined implementation is the key

Posted on by
Reply
Budget speech cover

The revised Budget for 2026-27, presented to the Assembly by Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan on June 19, 2026, aims ambitious reforms with fiscal realism. Though the Chief Minister aims to rebuild the economy through innovation, transparency, and social equity, success will hinge on disciplined implementation and sustained revenue recovery.

Mr. Satheesan is planning a major infrastructure push through projects such as Mission Samudra, Aviation Hub, Southern Kerala Economic Corridor, and Health & Life Sciences City. These are long-term projects which would need continued steering through a tough financial pathway. The Budget inherits ₹87,000 crore in liabilities and faces limited fiscal space for new spending.

Though the White paper on Finances had identified the problem areas, the Budget has not come with enough measures to address the problems. The Chief Minister is clearly in no position to propose new taxes. So, financial recovery will largely depend on buoyancy in taxes and recovery. The precarious and even hilarious situation can be gauged by the proposal to offer 50 per cent discount on payment of e-challans. It is not a secret that the previous government used e-challans as a revenue-raising measure with policemen travelling on two wheelers with handheld cameras to book several persons in one go. Now, Mr. Satheesan is trying to recover at least 50 per cent of the unpaid traffic fines which had piling up. Imagine how difficult it is going to be for him to fund mega projects.

The Chief Minister has proposed that fair values for property registration will be revised to net in more revenues. However, this will not prevent tax evasion. Fair values, of course, should reflect market valuation. The best thing to do is to bring fair values as close as possible to the market value and reduce the tax rates. This will eliminate black money and tax evasion connected to black money.

Proposals to make public sector units profitable, hive off loss making units, and promote as many as 10000 MSME units are old wine in new bottle. These were initiatives that the Industries Minister P. K. Kunhalikutty had tried with little success during his previous terms as industries minister. His efforts to bring large-scale investments to the State too had been a failure. Whether he will succeed this time around is doubtful. In fact, the basic problem to be addressed here is corruption at all levels, if the government wants PSUs to be successful and State to be investor friendly. The paltry Rs. 10 crore allocation for AI appears to be meaningless.

However, there are rays of hope in the Budget. Projects like Kerala Knowledge Valley and Wayanad Tribal University aim to make Kerala a global education destination which is achievable if there is a will to put the right persons in charge. Satheesan is a person willing to read and be educated. So, his vision on maritime Kerala could succeed and Kerala could become something like Singapore.  But large‑scale projects require efficient execution and private‑sector participation to avoid delays. While visionary, many of his initiatives are long term; immediate economic stimulus measures are modest.

Initiatives for elderly welfare, caregiver schemes, and targeted assistance under One Kerala Karuthal Mission strengthen inclusivity. However, ominously, the Budget still had to speak of caring for the endosulfan victims, even decades under LDF and UDF administration.

Green and sustainable outlook can be seen in emphasis on renewable energy, silver economy, and eco‑friendly infrastructure. Proposals like that for Tribal University will be keenly watched as to its end-results.

If even a substantial portion of the proposed structural reforms and investment projects materialize, the budget could mark a significant shift in Kerala’s development trajectory. However, the ultimate test will be execution rather than intent.

Click here to view Budget highlights

Kerala’s whitepaper on finances: a critique

Posted on by
Reply

Kerala’s whitepaper on finance, titled Kerala’s Fiscal Health: A Status Report, is indeed a political statement though Chief Minister V. D. Satheesan, claims otherwise. It contains many valid fiscal concerns, though not a complete or neutral assessment of Kerala’s finances.

The report is useful as a warning document highlighting genuine fiscal vulnerabilities. However, it is not a comprehensive balance-sheet assessment of Kerala’s finances. It focuses far more on liabilities, deficits and institutional weaknesses than on assets created, social returns generated, and the long-term economic value of public investment. A proper assessment require both sides of the ledger.

High debts and sustainability
Kerala, as the report points out, has one of the highest debt-to-GSDP ratios among major states. Committed expenditure (salaries, pensions and interest) consumes a very large share of revenue receipts. Interest payments remain significantly higher than the all-state average while capital expenditure is relatively low compared with many states.

Kerala's fiscal health report- an assessment

While repeatedly emphasising debt levels, the report gives little attention to the State’s high per-capita income, relatively strong human development indicators, strong tax-paying capacity and large remittance-supported consumption base. A state with higher income levels can often sustain higher debt ratios than poorer states.

The document focuses heavily on fiscal ratios, but ignores what the State’s spending has historically produced in terms of literacy, strong health indicators. It treats much expenditure as fiscal burden without evaluating returns generated by that expenditure.

KIIFB benefits receive relatively little weight
The report acknowledges KIIFB’s infrastructure achievements but devotes much greater attention to liabilities. A balanced assessment should also examine economic returns of those investments.

The report discusses revenue shortfalls but fails to give attention to GST collection growth trends, own-tax revenue growth, digitisation of tax administration and Improvements in compliance. These factors matter when assessing future fiscal sustainability.

The role of external shocks, such as floods in 2018 and 2019, Covid pandemic and global economic disruptions are understated, though the report mentions some of them.

Important information that appears missing
The report focuses extensively on liabilities, but fails to examine assets such as infrastructure, land and assents of public enterprises.Debt without assets is alarming, but debt accompanied by productive assets requires a different assessment.

Comparative analysis with similar States
The report compares Kerala with all-state averages. But Kerala differs significantly from many states in terms of demographic transition, ageing population, migration patterns and social-sector commitments. Better comparisons would be with Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Without such comparisons, some conclusions may appear more alarming than they actually are.

Public-sector reform costs
The report recommends privatisation, disinvestment and closure of financially weak public sector units. It, however, does not sufficiently analyse employment impacts, social costs, transition costs and political feasibility. It can be hoped these would be considered while taking decisions on individual companies.

Economic benefits of welfare spending
The report largely treats welfare expenditure as consumption. Many economists would argue that education, health, nutrition and local-government spending are investments in human capital.

The report’s underlying philosophy appears to be that fiscal sustainability requires lower public-sector dominance and greater private investment. That is a legitimate economic viewpoint. However, alternative viewpoints exist:

  • Development economists may place greater emphasis on public investment and welfare.
  • Keynesian economists may accept higher debt levels if they support growth.
  • Social-democratic analysts may view Kerala’s social spending as a productive investment.

Structural paradox
Kerala has a massive household consumption rate backed by foreign remittances (23.2% of Net State Domestic Product), yet its destination-based GST collections are profoundly weak. While it briefly reasons that consumption leaks to producing states, it leaves a gap in explaining why tax administration/enforcement has failed to capture the final consumption tax slice effectively at point-of-sale within the state borders.

The report says that auditors evaluating high-profile transactions—such as the high costs incurred from raising Masala Bonds and massive consultancy payments routed through the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD)—were blocked because “supporting documents pertaining to payments were not made available for scrutiny”.

Former Finance Minister K. N. Balagopal has criticised the government in the Assembly for giving access to ‘secret’ documents from the Finance Department to outsiders as some outside experts were on the panel that prepared the report. Only those who have something to hide will oppose transparency. Transparency is the soul of democracy. The Report makes many aspects of the State’s finances transparent.

(This article and image have been prepared with assistance of AI)

Governor redeems

Posted on by

Finance Minsiter K. M. Mani

Kerala Finance Minister K. M. Mani presenting the Budget for 2015-16 in the Assembly on March 13, 2015 amidst vandalism by Opposition

Kerala Governor P. Sadasivam has at least nominally redeemed the prestige of Kerala legislature by warning legislators about their conduct.

A former Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, Sadasivam will not have failed to notice the obvious break down of not only Constitutional norms but also gross violation of democratic principles by the Opposition. There is no place for vandalism in legislative bodies in a democracy. However, reaction from opinion leaders was generally muted while the ordinary people on the social media could do nothing more than lampooning the politicians.

The Governor’s remark that the happenings on the floor of the Assembly on Friday (March 13, 2015) may even justify submission of a report by the Governor to the President under Article 356 of the Constitution of India is a rebuke to both the ruling and Opposition fronts. What the Governor hints is the vandalism of the kind in the House amounts to Constitutional break down warranting dissolution of the Assembly.

The Speaker N. Sakthan could not maintain even a semblance of order in the Assembly because of his reluctance of use force. Normal practice in the House is to use the watch and ward to cordon the podium of the Speaker as soon as the Opposition starts disruption of proceedings. On Friday, the Opposition had started their protest even before the House was called into session. Speaker probably hesitated because he was new to the Chair and did not want to start with a direct confrontation with the Opposition and become a direct target of the Opposition in the coming days.

The Opposition leaders had gone to the Governor saying that the presentation of the Budget was not in order, after creating all the disorder. The Governor has indirectly rebuffed them by accepting the Speaker’s stand that the Budget was duly presented. The Speaker could not be seen as conducting the business of the House during the bedlam created by the Opposition who had also practically gheraoed the Speaker and thrown his chair off the podium in gross disregard to the prestige of the House and its privileges. (The procedures adopted in the House for presentation of the Budget could be irregular but could not be challenged in a court of law. The House is the final arbiter of its own procedures).

The Governor, who himself is part of the Assembly as head of the State, has hinted that the further proceedings on the Budget including passing of the demands for grants on account and Appropriation Bill should be done in an orderly fashion. He may not condone total absence of order and decorum.

 

Discriminating in favour of women

Posted on by

Finance Minister P. Chidambara with Budget papersFinance Minister P. Chidambaram rides the wave announcing special programmes for women. However, the announcement of a public sector bank exclusively for women is an admission that existing public sector banks does not treat women equally.

That women are discriminated against by banks and that they are not getting adequate banking services is a shame. This is when one of the premier banks like the ICICI Bank is headed by a woman. The government has been able to cater to senior citizens to some extent through regulation. (They still face problems in using schemes such as reverse mortgage.) The government is apparently not able to do this for women— that is to force all banks to treat women equally.

A separate bank for women would solve the problem only notionally. If the same logic is applied to other areas, we would soon need an exclusive bank for SC and ST, minorities and backward classes.

Another scheme is ‘Nirbhaya’ for empowerment of women. The contours of this scheme are yet to be defined. We had scores of programmes in the past for empowerment of women. Like many other government scheme, they did not achieve much. What ‘Nirbhaya’ would do is to be seen.

Following the Delhi incidents, we are in the era of positive discrimination. Women returning from abroad are allowed to bring gold worth Rs. 1 lakh while men can bring only half the quantity. (For women, financially capable of travelling abroad, this is a pittance.). Well, this proposal violates equality before law and hence would be ultra vires of the Constitution.

 Budget highlights