Mumbai, Mar 10 (PTI) Shiv Sena (UBT) president Uddhav Thackeray on Monday dubbed the state Budget "completely bogus" and accused the Mahayuti government of not keeping the welfare promises.

The Budget, presented by state finance minister Ajit Pawar, made a provision of Rs 36,000 crore for the flagship Mukhyamantri Majhi Laadki Bahin scheme. However, it is silent on the promised hike in monthly stipend for women beneficiaries from Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,100.

This is the first budget of the Mahayuti government after the November 2024 assembly elections.

"This is a completely bogus budget. They (Mahayuti parties) made all the promises but none of them reflected in this budget," Thackeray told reporters.

He also expressed disappointment over the state government's plans to provide bank guarantees to sugar mills.

"The BJP-led government has given a bank guarantee of Rs 1,100 crore to sugar mills close to the ruling dispensation, while the pending dues of Rs 16,000 crore of the BMC (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) have been kept pending. What is the reason behind it?" the former chief minister asked.

He also objected to the Maharashtra government constructing a metro line connecting the Mumbai International Airport with the new Navi Mumbai International Airport.

"If the airport is managed by the Adani group then why Maharashtra government is spending taxpayers' money for the construction of a metro line connecting them? The expenditure for constructing the metro line should be borne by the Adani group," Thackeray said.

When asked whether he plans to go to the court against the state government, the former chief minister said, "If I go to the court, it will take 2-3 elections to get a verdict. This government had made false promises for coming to power". PTI ND NSK

Budgetary accountability criticized as welfare promises omitted and taxpayer funds directed to select private interests. The budget is assailed for failing to implement promised welfare measures-specifically omitting an increase in the monthly stipend for women beneficiaries-while providing fiscal support to select private interests through bank guarantees to sugar mills and proposing taxpayer-funded infrastructure that would benefit a private airport operator. The criticism frames these choices as misprioritisation of public funds and a breach of election commitments, and signals reluctance to seek prompt judicial remedy due to anticipated delays.