Shimla, Mar 17 (PTI) Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur on Monday dubbed Himachal Pradesh's budget for 2025-26 "a visionless budget of a directionless government" and said it had nothing for the state and its people.

With a focus on tourism, rural development and green energy, Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu presented a budget of Rs 58,514 crore for 2025-26.

Thakur, his predecessor, said the chief minister had announced an all-time low increase of Rs 70 crore over the previous year's budget.

Capital expenditure of 24 paise for every rupee is also the lowest, he claimed. "The allocation for capital expenditure was 44 paise for every rupee during our last budget (2021-22)." The former chief minister said the budget was disappointing for all sections of society. Health schemes such as Himacare and Sahara failed to find mention in the budget.

Even after three years, the Congress is blaming the previous government for financial mismanagement, not realising that the BJP dispensation had debt liabilities of more than Rs 50,000 crore when it assumed office in 2017, he said.

The BJP's state chief Rajiv Bindal described the budget as a joke on unemployed youngsters and unjust towards women and farmers.

There is nothing for the development of the state and its people, he said.

Firing cases are on the rise and there is no provision to improve the deteriorating law and order. The chief minister is talking about quality of education and health care while closing academic and medical institutions, he alleged.

An attempt has been made to mislead the public by changing the names of old schemes, Bindal claimed. PTI BPL SZM SZM

Budget critique: opposition says fiscal plan lacks developmental focus and fails to address health, jobs and capital investment. The opposition brands the 2025-26 budget as visionless and insufficiently developmental, highlighting a minimal nominal increase and a reduced capital-expenditure share; it contends health schemes were omitted, scheme renaming masks continuity, and allocations fail to address unemployment, women's and farmers' needs. Critics also point to law-and-order concerns and alleged contradictions between proclaimed priorities in education and health and the closure of institutions, while the government cites past debt liabilities in defence of fiscal choices.