Kochi Corporation Budget approved amid Opposition boycott

The Kochi Corporation’s Budget for 2026-27 was passed with amendments suggested during the discussion even as the Opposition Left Democratic Front (LDF) staged a boycott, alleging that the changes had reduced the surplus into a deficit.

Deputy mayor Deepak Joy had presented a ₹132-crore surplus Budget. Mayor V.K. Minimol said that proposals to address drinking water scarcity and to establish memorials for the late literary critic M.K. Sanoo and ghazal singer Umbayi had been incorporated.

However, LDF Parliamentary Party leader V.A. Sreejith said the Opposition chose to boycott rather than endorse the Budget as he felt that the amendments had rendered it deficit in violation of the Municipal Act.

For the Budget to be viable, the Corporation would need to collect property tax worth ₹78 crore in a single month, which, he termed, was “next to impossible.” He pointed out that while the Budget speech referred to projects such as the ₹200-crore renovation of the Pandarachira canal and two new waste treatment plants costing ₹40 crore, they were absent in the Budget estimates. Incorporating them, he argued, would push the Budget into deficit. “This is a ploy to win popular support by announcing projects without allocating funds for their implementation. There is no reason why we should back a deficit budget,” Mr. Sreejith said.

Ms. Minimol countered that the Pandarachira canal rejuvenation was foreign-funded and need not be accounted for in the Corporation’s estimates. It was common practice, she said, for Budgets to reference such projects. For instance, the previous LDF council had earmarked ₹75 crore for the Compressed Biogas plant at Brahmapuram, though it was funded by BPCL-Kochi Refineries.

Meanwhile, Corporation secretary P.S. Shibu, in a written response to the LDF’s petition alleging leakage of the Budget before its presentation, clarified that only the council agenda generated through the K-Smart module had been shared with councillors and the media. The Municipal Act, he noted, contained no provision mandating secrecy of the Budget estimate prepared by the finance standing committee, though precedent had followed that practice. While the Opposition claimed this vindicated its charge, the ruling council maintained that it only reaffirmed their position.