Kerala High Court Questions Centre’s Bias in Disaster Relief Allocation

Court Cites Union Aid to BJP-Ruled States, Suggests Kerala Was Denied Fairness

October 10, 2025

The Kerala High Court has criticised the Union government for refusing to waive the loans of survivors of the devastating Wayanad landslides, citing the Centre’s past disaster relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled states as evidence of selective treatment. The criticism appears to question whether the Union government is applying its powers to distribute financial relief in a politically biased and arbitrary manner, rather than upholding the neutrality expected in a federal system.

The court was hearing a suo motu case related to the July 2024 landslides in Meppadi panchayat, Wayanad district, which claimed hundreds of lives and displaced many families. The Union government argued that it lacked the legal authority to interfere with loan transactions regulated by banks and the RBI, as reported by LiveLaw. However, the division bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Jobin Sebastian rejected this explanation, stating that the Union was hiding behind a claim of powerlessness to avoid acting.

The bench accused the Centre of “failing the people of Kerala” and said the state could do without the “charity” of the Union government.

In its remarks, the court directly compared Kerala’s situation to that of other states that had received financial aid. The bench pointed out that the Union government had approved 7.0797 billion (707.97 crore) rupees in assistance to Gujarat and Assam, both of which faced floods and landslides that were not even classified as “severe.” It also cited 9.0367 billion (903.67 crore) rupees given to Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan for fire services. These are all BJP-ruled states, unlike Kerala, where the Left Democratic Front holds power.

The court’s remarks suggest a deeper concern that the distribution of federal resources may be influenced by political considerations rather than guided by constitutional principles of fairness. The court identified unequal application of disaster relief policy and presented it as a violation of public trust. The judges made it clear that the problem was not a lack of legal authority, but a refusal to act, as they pointedly asked, “Who are you trying to fool?”

This judicial critique echoes claims made by several opposition-ruled states about receiving unequal treatment from the Centre. For example, West Bengal has repeatedly alleged delays in the release of MGNREGA and PMAY funds. In Tamil Nadu, the state government has accused central agencies of politically motivated raids targeting DMK leaders. Punjab has also expressed frustration over unilateral policy decisions on issues like agricultural reforms, made without meaningful consultation.

Respecting the separation of powers, the judiciary chose not to issue direct orders to the Union government. The bench explained that its “sense of Constitutional morality” required it to avoid stepping into the role of the executive. Instead, the court asked for a list of Union-controlled banks and orally stated that it would make them parties to the case, issue formal notices, and stay loan recovery from the Wayanad landslide survivors for the time being.

The Constitution divides powers between the Union and the states through the Seventh Schedule, outlining distinct legislative and financial responsibilities. However, the legitimacy of this federal structure relies not just on legal boundaries but on a good-faith commitment to fairness in how the Union exercises its authority, especially over financial resources. Articles 280 and 275 provide for financial transfers to states, and institutions like the Finance Commission exist to ensure equity in such allocations.

The impression that the Centre favours certain states over others based on political alignment, particularly during emergencies that demand national support, undermines the principle of cooperative federalism. India’s federal democracy depends on the trust that states will not be punished or rewarded based on political affiliation.

By refusing aid to Kerala and then invoking technicalities to justify the refusal, the Union government has invited constitutional criticism not just from opposition parties but from the judiciary itself. While the court did not use the word “partisan,” its comparison between Kerala and other states that had received Union assistance, without explicitly stating that those states were BJP-ruled, made the implication difficult to ignore.

The court’s remark, “we don’t need the Union’s charity,” expressed more than frustration. It signalled concern that the Union government’s unwillingness to act fairly in a moment of crisis could weaken the larger trust that sustains federal cooperation. In a country as diverse and administratively complex as India, any erosion of that trust risks unsettling the balance between the Centre and the states. While the court chose not to issue directions to the executive, its language pointed to a serious institutional concern, raising the possibility that constitutional responsibilities are being avoided under the claim of legal limitation.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.