Gauhati High Court Admits PIL Over Assam's Growing Debt, But Flags Judicial Limits In Fiscal Matters

The Gauhati High Court recently admitted a PIL seeking directions to the Assam government to strictly comply with the provisions of the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2005 (as amended).

The PIL alleges persistent violations of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the AFRBM Act, including failure to limit fiscal deficit to 3% of GSDP (Gross State Domestic Product), elimination of revenue deficit, prudent debt management and use of borrowings only for productive capital assets and not for revenue expenditure.

According to the petition, the escalating public debt (outstanding liabilities having surged by 103.34% from ₹72,256.52 crore in 2019-20 to ₹1,46,927.84 crore as on 31 March 2024, with debt-to-GSDP ratio rising to 25.77%) is stated to infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 14, 19 and 21 and violate constitutional mandates under Articles 202, 266 and 293.

Petitioner has prayed for directions for strict enforcement of the AFRBM Act, time-bound forensic audit by the CAG, constitution of an Expert Committee and other consequential reliefs to restore fiscal discipline, transparency and accountability in the management of public finances and to protect the economic rights of the people of Assam.

The PIL was being heard by a division bench led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar.

Senior Advocate Kamal Nayan Chowdhary, appearing for the petitioner submitted that constitutional principles could not be compromised for “political expediency” and argued that the State was not following the principles contained in the Assam Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that while there “cannot be a breach” of the prescriptions contained in the 2005 law, fiscal matters are areas where the court is “loathed in entering … the limit within which an order can be passed in any petition… we are stopped from exercising our jurisdiction.”

To which the Counsel responded by stating, “I think constitutional courts do have that power of laying down the provisions within which executive will function.”

In response to which, the Court observed, “If that were not the consideration would we have taken even two seconds to dismiss this petition as being absolutely vague and not maintainable.”

The Court further remarked, “The concern raised is absolutely correct but the forum is not correct … This battle can be fought politically.”

“It'll be better for the advocates, better for the litigants, good for the institution that we don't enter into a debate of this kind. We are called upon to decide cases. We decide to the best of our ability being fair, being impartial, being balanced, but we can't possibly pass an order which would create a chaotic situation where the courts overstep their jurisdiction. Can there be any two opinions about it?” the Court questioned.

After hearing the parties, the Court recorded the submission of the Additional Advocate General that the State would file its response.

The Court accordingly admitted the PIL and listed the matter for further hearing on September 16, 2026.

Case Name: Reetam Singh v. State of Assam & Ors.

Case No.: PIL No. 43/2026