Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Thursday took a serious note of the State government’s affidavit, in which Article 162 of the Constitution of India was wrongly quoted, filed in the High Court seeking vacation of the order staying Kalyana Lakshmi and Shaadi Mubarak schemes’ operation. The affidavit filed by B. Bala Maya Devi, Principal Secretary to Government (Full Additional Charge), Backward Classes Welfare Department, stated that the impugned G.O.s relating to implementation of the two welfare schemes were issued under Article 162 of the Constitution to achieve the constitutional goals of social justice. The affidavit also stated that under Article 162 the executive power of a State is completely co-extensive and co-terminus with its legislative competence. When the judge sought to know if the Article 162 mentioned in the affidavit was correct, the Additional Advocate General Mohammed Imran Khan admitted that it was wrongly mentioned describing it as a typographical error. The AAG said that the part of 162 Article quoted in the affidavit was not only a mistake but a blunder. The judge directed the AAG to file a rectified affidavit. Before directing the Finance Secretary to file an affidavit on the status of the government taking loans to continue welfare schemes, the judge also asked the AAG what was the priority of the government when it comes to discharging statutory obligations like paying compensation to land losers and welfare schemes. Justice Shravan Kumar said some staff members of Mahbubnagar court (the judge’s administrative court) did not get salaries for four months. The judge made it clear that it was not for the courts to interfere on how the government dealt with the finances. But the courts had to maintain a balance in deciding matters relating to finance administration, he said. The AAG, however, raised objection over advocate Vijay Gopal -who filed the writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of implementation of the two schemes- reading out the representation of some retired government employees not receiving their post-retirement benefits for months together. While the AAG said it amounted to making political statements in the open court, the petitioner and advocate contended that he was only attempting to bring to attention of the court as to how debts due to welfare schemes were affecting State’s discharge of statutory obligations. The matter was posted to Monday for next hearing. Published - August 20, 2026 08:44 pm IST