Kerala HC tells govt to consider Kozhikode corp councillor’s plaint on legality of budget session

Kochi: High court has directed the state govt to consider, within a month, the representation submitted by a Kozhikode municipal corporation councillor alleging that the corporation's budget session for the fiscal year 2026-27 was convened in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995.A bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan issued the order in response to a petition filed by Sreeja Suresh, who represents ward 71 of the corporation. HC further observed that the corporation committee's decision approving the 2026-27 budget would be subject to the state govt's decision on the representation filed by the petitioner. It also issued notice to the state govt and the corporation on the petition and adjourned the matter for a detailed hearing.Kozhikode corporation had convened meetings on Feb 28 and March 2 for the presentation and approval of the budget estimates for the upcoming financial year. However, Sreeja Suresh alleges that the meeting convened on Feb 28 was held without prior notice of at least three clear days to the members, as required under the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995.According to the petition, the notice was issued just a day before the meeting, stating that an emergency meeting would be convened the following day. Suresh contended that, under the Rules, the budget estimates must be placed before the council only in a duly convened special meeting and not in an emergency meeting. It was further alleged that the finance standing committee itself convened and approved the budget estimates on Feb 27 — the very same day on which notice for the council meeting was issued — without complying with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the applicable rules.Despite the petitioner having specifically raised objections regarding the alleged illegality of the proceedings and submitted representations, the corporation neither considered nor addressed them, prompting her to approach HC. She further claimed that although the minutes of the meetings were published on March 28 through the K-SMART application, the objections raised by the petitioner were not recorded therein.