Pune: Luxury Phones, No SIMs? AAP Leader Slams Delhi Govt’s Revised Mobile Reimbursement Policy
Pune/New Delhi, 14th July 2025: In a move drawing sharp public scrutiny and online satire, the Delhi Government has revised its policy on mobile handset reimbursements for the Chief Minister and Council of Ministers, sparking controversy not for its generosity, but for what it omits.
According to a July 9 memorandum issued by the General Administration Department, the Chief Minister is now eligible for a reimbursement of up to ₹1.5 lakh for a mobile handset, while Cabinet Ministers can claim up to ₹1.25 lakh. Monthly mobile call charges will be reimbursed based on actual usage. However, the circular clearly states that SIM cards will not be provided by the government — a detail that triggered widespread ridicule on social media.
Prominent RTI activist and senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Vijay Kumbhar led the criticism, posting a tweet: “Let’s reimburse up to ₹1.5 lakh for the Minister’s and Chief Minister’s mobile phones, but not provide a SIM card, because that’s where the real savings are. Welcome to budget management, Delhi-style.”
Kumbhar called the policy “an absurd example of budget mismanagement,” pointing out the contradiction of providing high-end smartphones while leaving officials to arrange basic connectivity on their own.
The newly issued policy supersedes a 2013 circular and also outlines restrictions on handset replacements. Devices will not be replaced within two years unless the cost of repair exceeds 50% of the original purchase price, in which case replacements will be considered individually.
The decision was approved by the Finance Department.
On social media, users expressed frustration using hashtags like #GovernmentPriorities and #TaxpayerMoney, questioning the rationale behind allocating significant public funds to luxury gadgets while ignoring essential services and infrastructure gaps.
As Delhi continues to face demands for improved civic services and equitable budget distribution, this policy decision has reignited debates on the government’s financial priorities — and whether symbolism has once again outweighed substance.
