text:
Explainer: What are the reasons for delay in the execution of a Death sentence?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 25, 2020
The four convicts in the Nirbhaya case were finally executed a few days ago. The execution took place 6 years after the fast track court awarded the death sentence. But what are the reasons for such a delay in the execution of death sentence? Here is a detailed explainer.
After more than seven years since the barbaric gang rape of a23-year-old paramedic student, the four convicts were executed in the earlyhours of 20 March 2020 at Tihar Jail. They had left no stone unturned to savethemselves from execution.  Though theywere awarded death sentence by a fast track court in September 2013, it tookmore than 6 years for the death sentence to be executed.  But what are the reasons for such a longdelay in the execution of death sentence? Here is a detailed explainer. `
Capital punishment has always been a controversial issue in India andother countries as well. Generally, capital punishment is awarded in the rarestof rare cases related to rape, murder, terrorism, and atrocities towardsScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India. According to National Law University’s annual report published in 2016, there are 59sections in 18 central legislations which cite death penalty as a possiblepunishment. 12 of these sections are covered under the Indian Penal Code. Inthe Law Commission of India’s report on Death Penalty in 2015, it was stated thatthere were 12 crimes under IPC and 22 other laws which prescribed deathpenalty. Later, in 2019, the NDA government amended the POCSO Act in order to grant death penalty to those who indulge in aggravatedsexual assault against children.
High Court’s confirmation is mandatory for execution
of death sentence
Usually, the trials of these rarest of rare cases take place in theSessions Court or Trial Court or a designate fast track court or a specialcourt where, based on the severity of the offence, the court can pronouncedeath penalty to the convict. It is mandatory under Section 366 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that the High Court confirms the sentencebefore issuing a death warrant. This is not applicable to those centrallegislations such as the Air Force Act 1950, Army Act 1950, Assam Rifles Act2006, ITBF Act, 1992, etc. which are excluded from the CrPC.
The Constitution gives convicts the option to approach
SC challenging HC’s decisions
The convict who is awarded the death sentence has the option to approachthe Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision as per Articles 132,134 and 136 of Indian Constitution. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the convictcan file review petition under Article 137. If the review petition is dismissedby the Court, then they can file a curative petition to reconsider thedecision.
Mercy Petition can be filed with the President or
State Governor for commutation
Once capital punishment has been finalized by either of the courts, theconvict can file a request for pardon or mercy petition with the President ofIndia (Article 72) or the Governor of the state (Article 161) stating reasonssuch as age, health, and law. The President or Governor disposes of thepetition based on the recommendations of state government and sanction of theHome Ministry. Both the President and Governor can grant pardon, reprieve,respite or remission of punishment or suspend, remit or commute the convict.However, both of them must reject the mercy petition for the execution to takeplace. Further, the convict can file a petition with the Supreme Courtquestioning the President’s decision in the case of mercy petition. Once thispetition is disposed, death sentence is executed.
Convicts can file up to four petitions
A convict can, therefore, file up to four petitions. This provision hasbeen granted to convicts in order to ensure that the decision made is nothasty. The procedure gives enough checks and balances in the course of trial sothat no innocent person should be convicted.
Capital punishment is to be awarded only in the rarest
of rare cases
In Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab 1982, the Supreme Court stated that capitalpunishment was to be given in only ‘rarest of rare’ cases. Supreme Court upheldthe constitutionality of death penalty in this case. The need for this doctrinewas to reduce the ambiguity in the kind of cases in which death penalty was tobe awarded. In this case, it was further stated that both aggravatingcircumstances (why should the punishment be severe) and mitigatingcircumstances (why should punishment be lessened) were to be considered by thecourt before arriving at the final decision.
Execution in the Nirbhaya case took place 6 years
after the judgment
On 16 December 2012, a 23-year-old girl who was returning from a moviewith her friend was brutally gang-raped in a bus in the national capital. Herfriend was also attacked. The incident resulted in nation-wide uproar on women safety inIndia. On 29 December 2012, Nirbhaya succumbed to the injuries in Singaporewhile undergoing treatment.
A total of six men were accused of the crime. One was a juvenile at thetime of incident and was sent to juvenile correction home for three years. Anotheraccused Ram Singh allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail in 2013. Theremaining four convicts, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma, and AkshayKumar Singh were hanged to death on 20 March 2020. What made this case morecomplicated is that all the convicts were to be executed together. This delayedthe process further. As long as any one convict’s petition was under scrutiny,others were also safeguarded by default. Each convict has the option to filepetition four times and there were four convicts in this case.
The Timeline of the Nirbhaya case
Date
Event
13 September 2013
Fast Track Court awarded death penalty to all four convicts
13 March 2014
Delhi High Court upheld the death penalty
05 May 2017
SC upheld the death penalty
08 November 2017
Mukesh files review petition in SC
15 December 2017
Vinay and Pawan moved to SC for reviewing its verdict
09 July 2018
SC dismissed all three review petitions
10 December 2019
Akshay filed review petition
18 December 2019
Akshay’s review plea dismissed
07 January 2020
Death warrant issued for 22 January 2020
08 January 2020
Vinay filed curative petition
09 January 2020
Mukesh filed curative petition
14 January 2020
Both curative petitions were dismissed and Mukesh files mercy petition
17 January 2020
Death warrant issued for 01 February 2020
27 January 2020
Writ petition against mercy petition filed by Mukesh
29 January 2020
Writ petition rejected, Akshay files curative petition and Vinay files mercy petition
30 January 2020
Curative petition dismissed
31 January 2020
Akshay filed mercy petition
01 February 2020
Mercy petition rejected
05 February 2020
Akshay’s petition dismissed
11 February 2020
Vinay proceeded with writ against mercy petition
14 February 2020
Vinay’s petition dismissed
17 February 2020
Death warrant issued for 3 March 2020
28 February 2020
Pawan filed curative petition
02 March 2020
Pawan’s curative petition dismissed, filed mercy petition
04 March 2020
Mercy petition rejected
05 March 2020
Death warrant issued for 20 March 2020
20 March 2020
EXECUTED
Government amended ‘Criminal Law’ making definition of
rape broader and increasing punishment
After the gruesome 2012 incident, following public outcry, thegovernment amended Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, also referred to as Nirbhaya Act, in 2013. Throughthe amendment, definition of rape was made broader and punishment more stringentas per J S Verma Committee’s recommendation in 2013. The amendment provided fordeath penalty in rape cases that result in death of victim or puts her in avegetative state. Furthermore, punishment for gang-rape was doubled from 10years to 20 years and up to life imprisonment. The law also included other actssuch as voyeurism, stalking, passing sexual remarks, unwelcome physicalcontact, gestures, and showing pornography against will as crimes.
Nirbhaya fund was announced in 2013 Union Budget
Nirbhaya fund was launched by the Centre to bolster women safetyacross the country. This fund was to be used by states for improvinginfrastructure such as installation of CCTV and streetlights and other projects aimed at womensafety. Factly’s article on the status of utilization of the Nirbhaya fund canbe read here.
Juvenile delinquency law amended in 2015
Juvenile delinquency law in India was also amended in 2015 to allow trial ofchildren between 16-18 years as adults for heinous crimes.  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act was modified with the intention to act as deterrentfor children committing heinous crimes. Here, heinous crimes are those whichhave a minimum punishment of 7 years’ imprisonment under any law. For example,rape and murder are heinous offences in India.
Only four people were executed between 2000 and 2018
in India while close to 2500 were awarded death sentence
Capital punishment has once again become a topic of debate following theexecution of the four convicts in this case. Since the beginning of thismillennium, a total of 2493 people were awarded capital punishment as per the National
Crime Records Bureau’s data as on 31 December 2018. However, only four were executed at the time ofrelease of data. Including the latest executions, a total of eight convictshave been executed since 2000. The Law Commission of India had recommended that death penalty be abolished in all cases exceptterrorism and waging war.


text:
Why is Aam Aadmi Party abbreviated as AAAP in ECI records?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 14, 2020
Anyone who has followed the 2020 Delhi Assembly election results on the ECI’s website must have been surprised to note that the Aam Aadmi Party was abbreviated as ‘AAAP’ and not ‘AAP’. Why is it so and does it make any difference to the election process & outcome?
The
results of the 2020 Delhi Legislative Assembly were announced on 11 February 2020. The ruling Aam Aadmi Party won a landslide bagging62 out of 70 seats whereas the Bharatiya Janata Party bagged the remaining 8 seats.However, those who viewed the Election Commission’s portal to check the resultswere taken by surprise seeing the ‘Aam Aadmi Party’ being abbreviated as ‘AAAP’and trying to find an answer to this question.
Aam
Aadmi Party is popularly known as ‘AAP’
The Aam Aadmi Party is popularly known with the acronym, ‘AAP’. Even on the party’s website, the party uses the acronym AAP along with their symbol, the broom, in blue and white shades.  The social media handles also use a similar profile picture.
However, the election results displayed in the Election Commission of India (ECI) ’s portal refer to Aam Aadmi Party with the acronym ‘AAAP’. This is being debated on social media raising doubts if it’s a typo in the ECI website.
Is
this really a typo?
In reply to a tweet, the spokesperson of ECI, Sheyphali Sharan stated that the triple A in the abbreviation was not a typo. Further, the spokesperson also added that the same abbreviation was used in 2015 elections as well since the acronym ‘AAP’ was already allocated to another party, ‘Awami Aamjan Party’ registered with ECI on 03 January 2011. The Aam Aadmi Party was registered with ECI only in 2013.
Along with the tweet, the spokesperson also attached an image of the list of parties that contested in the Delhi elections in 2015 along with their acronyms where it was clearly mentioned that the abbreviation for Aam Aadmi Party is AAAP.
In the list of parties that participated in Delhi Legislative Assembly elections  in 2013 too, it could be seen that the abbreviation used was AAAP.
Clearly, this isnot the first time that such an abbreviation was used for the Aam Aadmi Party.
Back in May 2019,an Aam Aadmi Party politician, Somnath Bharti, had taken to
Twitter asking the ECI why the resultsshown on the ECI website refer to the party as AAAP and not AAP. The ECIreplied to the tweet stating, ‘It’s the code allocated to AAP’. Somnath
Bharti won the recent Delhi election fromMalviya Nagar constituency with a margin of around 18,000 votes.
`
What
is this ‘Awami Aamjan Party’?
The ‘Awami Aamjan Party’ was registered as a political party with the ECI in January 2011. The party’s based out of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh.
The party uses the abbreviation ‘AAP’ on its official letterhead.
Thisparty did not contest the 2012 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. However, theparty contested the 2013
Rajasthan assembly elections.It had put up candidates in 5 constituencies who together polled 8008 votes.
In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, this party contested in 2 parliament seats and secured 4380 votes. Both these were in Rajasthan (Tonk – Sawai Madhopur & Jalore). The party was allotted the Almirah symbol.
InTonk -Sawai Madhopur, both the Aam Aadmi Party & the Awami Aamjan Partycontested the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Their respective abbreviations can beseen in the results data from the ECI.
The Awami AamjanParty seems to have become inactive after 2014. It had neither contested the2018 Rajasthan assembly elections nor the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Does this abbreviation make any difference to the election outcome?
The abbreviation doesn’t affect the election process or the outcome since it is not used anywhere on the ballot paper. The ballot paper contains the name of the candidate, the picture of the candidate and the party symbol. The abbreviation is used only during the compilation of results and the preparation of statistical reports related to the elections.
In fact, in 2018, when the Aam Aadmi Party approached the Delhi High Court  (WP (C) 8658/2018) against the registration of newly formed ‘Aapki Apna Party (People’s)’ on grounds that the new party could use their abbreviation ‘AAP’ which can confuse their voters, the ECI told the High Court that the full names of political parties are used for registering parties and not the abbreviations.

source: news-factly

created: February 14, 2020

license: Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Section 4 of the RTI act
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 4, 2016
The DoPT has issued an Office Memorandum (OM) with a slew of recommendations to improve the disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI act. While the recommendations have been discussed for a while now, only their proper implementation will result in greater transparency.
The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) issued a new Office Memorandum (OM) on Right to Information (RTI). The directions in this OM are from the list of recommendations given by a committee of experts consisting of former Information Commissioners. This committee was constituted to recommend measures to strengthen implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act.
What does this new OM say?
One of the important measures recommended by DoPT time and again has been uploading of RTI applications and replies on the websites of respective departments. It has also been recommended previously that Departments must make an analysis of information which is sought most often from applicants and such information should be proactively disclosed on the websites.
But as Factly reported earlier, only a handful of Chief Minister’s offices have disclosed information as mandated under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI act. And only a few central government departments have uploaded the RTI applications and their replies online. Unless government departments make an effort to constantly analyse the information needs of people and proactively disclose such information, these directions would bear no fruit. For instance, expenses on the foreign tours of ministers, the Prime Minister, advertisement expenditure of the government etc are frequently sought by the citizens. Government departments could proactively disclose such information to reduce the number of RTI applications. Unfortunately this 2012 OM from DoPT about proactive disclosure of the official tours of Ministers and officials is still not properly implemented.
Consultative Committees should be set up
The DoPT recommended setting up of consultative committees consisting of all the relevant stake holders (like representatives of civil society) in various departments. The committees should hold regular meetings and advice the public authorities on what information is to be uploaded proactively.
There are examples of such consultative committees across the country. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has a technical advisory committee to look into RTI matters. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2012 had set up a high level committee to look into RTI related issues at the state and district levels. These committees also had representation from the civil society.
Information & Facilitation Center should be set up
The DoPT also recommended setting up of Information & Facilitation Centers (IFC) to educate citizens about the information & documents available on the website of departments.  This might help common citizens understand the kind of information & documents available with the relevant department. Indexing and cataloguing of records is already mandated under Section 4 of the RTI act.
Form a committee of PIOs with rich experience of RTI
The DoPT recommends setting up of a committee consisting of Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate authorities (FAAs) with rich experience of dealing with RTI applications and appeals. This committee is supposed to identify the categories of information frequently asked by the citizens. This committee could be clubbed with the consultative committee.
Proactively disclosed information must be properly organized
The DoPT also recommends that the proactively disclosed information be properly categorized and organized that it facilitates easy retrieval. The disclosures should also be organized in a searchable and retrievable database and also contain the last updated date. This step could ensure easy access of this information to the common citizens.
Undertake Transparency Audits
The DoPT also recommends transparency audits of various departments to be undertaken by the respective state training institutes. Center for Good Governance had previously developed an audit toolkit that could be used for the transparency audit of proactive disclosures by departments. The toolkit could be improvised to suit the needs of individual departments.  The audits if done properly would help departments understand how transparent they are and take corrective action.
The recommendations, if properly implemented can truly enhance the transparency in the working of the government and reduce the load of RTI applications at the same time.


text:
Facebook doesn't give money when any posts are liked, shared or commented - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 29, 2019
Various posts (post1, post2, post3, post4) with images of sick persons are shared on Facebook with a claim that Facebook will give money for the treatment of those children if the post is liked, shared or commented. Let’s try to analyze the claim made in these posts.
Facebook gives money for the treatment of sick persons when their posts are liked, shared or commented.
Fact: Facebook doesn’t give money when any post is liked, shared or commented. Facebook has alternative ways to raise funds for a cause. Hence, the claim made in the post is FALSE.
When searched about the claim in the post on Google, it was found that the news about Facebook donating money to the patients suffering from various ailments has been in circulation for many years. ‘CBS’ news has published an article in 2017 mentioning these kind of posts as “Dangerous ‘like-farming’ scams”.
When searched on Google to find out if Facebook gives money to patients suffering serious ailments when a post is liked or shared, an answer by Facebook team related to this issue was found on ‘Facebook help section’ that they do not give money if a post is liked or shared. Another answer related to this issue can be seen here.
In order to raise funds through its platform, Facebook has ‘Facebook Social Good‘ option through which one can raise money and spread awareness for a cause.
To sum it up, Facebook does not give money for the treatment of sick persons when their posts are liked, shared or commented.
Did you watch our new Episode of the DECODE series?

created: November 29, 2019


text:
Facilities, Finances & many other details about CBSE schools to be in the Public Domain
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 1, 2016
The CBSE has now made it mandatory for all its affiliated schools to upload mandatory information in six different categories by 30th November. The details have to include facilities, finances and many other important details. These details will be available in the public domain.
Schools affiliated with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will now have to file the mandatory disclosure containing more than 100 different parameters. The last date for filing the mandatory disclosure has been extended to 30 November 2016. The information has to be filed online and should also be uploaded on the school’s website.
The Mandatory Disclosure
There are more than 18000 schools across the country affiliated with the CBSE. Now, all these schools will have to file the mandatory disclosure about their academic & infrastructural facilities. They should also put this information in the public domain for wider publicity. The schools should also disclose the details about the finances including fees, salaries to teachers etc.
The information to be disclosed has been categorized into six broad categories.
General Information
The general information about the school has to contain the following information among others
Management Details
The management details should contain the name of the trust/society/company along with the names of the School Managing Committee. The details should also include names & addresses of the Principal & Correspondent of the school.
Infrastructure Details
The details about the following infrastructure should be uploaded
Staff Details
The following details of the staff have to be included
Financial reports
The financial reports of the school should include the following
Other Vital Information
The schools also have to upload other information like
Featured Image: CBSE Building

created: November 1, 2016


text:
Facilities of Indian MPs (Members of Parliament) - Factly
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 14, 2015
You often find people discussing about the facilities (perks) extended to MPs (Members of Parliament). But what is the reality? Here is a list of some of the perks enjoyed by MPs (apart from Salary & other monetary allowances).

created: January 14, 2015


text:
Fact Check: Is there a 3-minute waiting rule at Toll Plazas on National Highways?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 26, 2017
Information about free passage at a toll plaza if the waiting period is more than 3 minutes has been widely shared on social media in the last few days. Our investigation reveals that no such rule exists.
Update 2 (2021): The NHAI has now issued new guidelines to enable free passage of vehicles if the queue at any toll plaza lane exceeds 100 meters. For more information, read our detailed article here.
Update 1 (2017): The NHAI has clarified through a letter on 20th July that no such rule exists as reported by Factly earlier.
Social Media has been abuzz with the following news for the last 3 days. The news refers to a RTI reply from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) which says if a vehicle is delayed for more than 3 minutes at a toll plaza, then one needn’t pay the toll tax. This reply was given to one Mr. Hariom Jindal, an advocate from Ludhiana. The reply was given by the Project Director of NHAI in their unit office in Jalandhar. Our investigation shows that no such rule exists.
Toll Plazas & Waiting time
Long queues and congestion at toll plazas has been a concern for a long time. In 2015 and again in 2016, the Member (Finance) of NHAI had written to all regional offices of NHAI expressing concern at congestion at various toll plazas.
In his letter, he mentioned two specific provisions that are part of various concession agreements signed with the toll plaza operators. These provisions talk about the maximum waiting time or number of vehicles in queue in peak hours at toll plazas.
In this letter, the concerned official also suggested actions to be taken in each case as in the image below.
Are these provisions found in any concession agreement?
The provisions mentioned in the letter of NHAI official are found in various concession agreements. For e.g.,in the concession agreement signed with Navayuga Devanahalli Tollway Pvt. Ltd in 2010, for the Hyderabad-Bangalore highway, the second provision was included.
Since the RTI reply was from Ludhiana, we also checked the concession agreement of Panipat-Jalandhar section of NH-1 that passes through Ludhiana. This also had a similar provision.
So what if these provisions are violated?
While there is no clear answer in the concession agreements about what happens when these provisions  are violated, the letter of NHAI official and various other documents of the NHAI give us the answer. These documents talk about expansion and other means of addressing the problem. We did not find the free passage provision in case of a waiting time of more than 3 minutes in any document of the NHAI.
The NHAI official in his 2016 letter to all regional offices specified the following actions as listed in the image below. The measures include deploying additional toll collectors with handheld devices, expansion of toll plazas to meet the demand and staggered arrangement of toll collection.
So what about the RTI reply?
While we are still trying to find out the reason behind such a reply from the NHAI Jalandhar office, other things make it clear that no such rule exists.
The toll operator in Ludhiana denies presence of any such provision: Soma Isolux, the toll plaza operator in the Panipat – Jalandhar section of NH-1 that also passes through Ludhiana had written to the NHAI project director at Ambala in March 2016 regarding waiting time at toll plazas. In its letter, the toll operator mentions the issue of forcible release of traffic during peak time and that no such provision is part of the concession agreement. It is also mentioned in the letter that forcible release of vehicles is initiated upon telephonic directions from authorities. The letter also mentions that such forcible release will cause a loss to the government exchequer.
Forcible release of vehicles only a random action: An article in the Tribune earlier this year acknowledges long delays at this particular toll plaza near Ludhiana on the Panipat – Jalandhar section and quotes a NHAI official as saying that gates are opened whenever there are long delays and complaints from Public. The NHAI official is quoted as asking people to call the control room number or use the complaint register at the toll plaza. The article also quotes that between November 5, 2015, to January 26, 2016, the district administration had provided free access at the toll plaza randomly & over 14, 815 vehicles crossed the toll without paying.
Is enforceable only when it is part of the contract: The Times of India also did a story on the RTI reply in which the Deputy Commissioner of Ludhiana is quoted as saying that this matter has been discussed at various levels and the free passage can be enforced only if it is specified and listed in the contract between the toll operator & NHAI.
All the above make it amply clear that no such rule for free passage exists and the 3-minute timeline is an indicator to increase the capacity of the toll plaza. The incidents of free passage have been random and were enforced by district authorities whenever there was a long delay.
Have you watched the latest episode of our DECODE series on Parliament?


text:
Fact Check: Amit Shah is wrong. BJP lost only 6 seats with a margin less than NOTA
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 23, 2018
BJP National President Amit Shah claimed that BJP lost 13 seats (6 in Bengaluru) in the recently concluded Karnataka polls where the margin was less than NOTA. The ECI data shows that the claim is wrong and BJP lost only 6 seats where the margin was less than NOTA and none in Bengaluru.
BJP National President, Amit Shah,  claimed in a press conference in Delhi that BJP has lost 13 seats where the margin is less than the NOTA, including 6 in Bengaluru region in the recently concluded Karnataka assembly election. Below is a screenshot from the press release uploaded on the BJP website.
The video uploaded by the BJP also confirms that Amit Shah did make this claim.
NOTA numbers in Karnataka Election
NOTA accounted for just over 3 lakh votes in this election which is 0.9% of the total votes polled. The 0.9% for NOTA in the 2018 Karnataka election is on the lower side when compared to the votes polled for NOTA in other state elections. For instance, NOTA polled 1.8% of the votes in Gujarat (2017), 2.5% in Bihar (2015) and 1.52% in West Bengal (2016).
NOTA polled the highest in Bangalore South constituency.  Here, NOTA polled 15829 votes and was in the 4th place after the three major parties. In 28 other constituencies, NOTA polled more than 2000 votes. Majority of these constituencies are in the urban areas.
How many seats did BJP lose where NOTA vote was more than the margin?
As per data released by the Election Commission of India (ECI), NOTA vote was more than the victory margin in only seven (7) constituencies in Karnataka.  These include Aland, Badami, Gadag, Hirekerur, Kungdol, Maski and Pavagada. Out of these constituencies, six were won by the Congress while Aland was won by the BJP.
What about seats in the Bengaluru region?
The 2 claim is about BJP losing 6 such seats in the Bengaluru area.  Out of the 28 seats in the Bengaluru region, elections were held in 26 while elections to two other seats were postponed. Out of the 26, BJP won 11 seats, Congress 13 seats and JD(S) won the remaining 2 seats. Out of the seats won by Congress & JD(S), there was not a single seat where the margin was less than the NOTA vote. In fact, except in Vijay Nagar, the margin exceeded the NOTA vote by at least 1000 votes. In Vijay Nagar, the margin exceeded the NOTA vote by 808 votes.
Fact Check – Claim 1
The claim that BJP lost 13 seats where the margin is less than NOTA is WRONG. As noted above, BJP lost only 6 seats where the margin is less than NOTA.
Fact Check – Claim 2
The claim that the BJP lost 6 seats in Bengaluru region where the margin is less than NOTA is also WRONG. As explained above, BJP did not lose a single seat in Bengaluru where margin was less than NOTA.


text:
Fact Check: Are more people travelling in Airplanes than in AC trains? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 21, 2018
One of the infographics on the government’s 48-month portal makes certain claims about the expansion of the aviation sector in the past 4 years under the NDA government . Here is a fact check of these claims.
One of the infographics on the government’s 48-month portal makes certain claims about the expansion of the aviation sector under the NDA government in the past 4 years. Let’s verify each of these claims. The following claims were made in the infographic;
Claim 1: India is now the third largest aviation market
The  “largest aviation market” is defined as largest traffic to, from and within a country as per the International Air Transport Association (IATA),  the premier trade association of the world’s airlines.
According to CAPA – Centre for Aviation, as of April 2018, the top 5 largest domestic aviation markets are United States, China, India, Japan and Indonesia. Although India is the world’s third largest domestic aviation market, it is not the third largest aviation market. According to IATA, India is projected to be in the top 3 largest aviation markets surpassing UK by 2025.
Claim: India is now the third largest aviation market
Fact: India is the third largest domestic aviation market and not the world’s third largest aviation market. Hence the first claim is only PARTLY TRUE.
Claim 2: Passenger traffic growth is in the range of 18-20% over the past three years
As per domestic traffic reports from 2014 to 2018, released by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a table with the number of passengers carried during that period by domestic airlines has been compiled. The numbers are cumulative and so the value for the month of March is the number of people who have flown domestically between January and March of that year. All figures are in lakhs.
The annual passenger traffic growth has been calculated by using the domestic passengers’ data for each calendar year. This shows the percentage increase in passenger traffic from one year to the next at the end of the year. We find that for the past three years, passenger air traffic has been growing at an average of 20% and is in the range of 17-23%.
Claim: Passenger traffic growth is in the range of 18-20% over the past three years
Fact: The claim that passenger traffic growth has been between 18-20% is TRUE.
Claim 3: More people have travelled in airplanes than in AC trains for the first time
To verify the claim about the number of people travelling by air being greater than those travelling by AC train, the passenger data provided in the annual reports of the DGCA were compared with data provided in the statistical statements of the Indian Railways. The Indian Railways publishes an annual document titled ‘Statistical Statements’ that gives a breakup of the number of passengers that were carried in that year by the class in which they travelled. This data was aggregated to find the number of people who travelled by AC class in trains between 2012-13 and 2016-17.  Total passenger traffic of the AC class is calculated by including the traffic in AC First Class, AC Sleeper Class, AC 3 Tier & AC Chair Car. Total passenger traffic of Airlines is calculated by including both domestic & international passenger traffic.
Claim: More people have travelled in airplanes than in AC trains for the first time
Fact: We find that for the first time in 2016-17, unlike the previous years, the number of people who travelled by Airplane is higher than those who travelled in all AC class of trains. Thus, the claim is TRUE.
Claim 4: Domestic air passengers crossed 100 million in 2017
As noted earlier,  the data from DGCA indicates that, in 2017, the number of passengers carried by domestic airlines was 1171.76 lakhs, or over 117 million.
Claim: Domestic air passengers crossed 100 million in 2017
Fact: Thus, the claim is TRUE.
Claim 5: A National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled in 2016 to transform the sector
In 2016, the National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled, which aimed to expand the aviation sector and reduce the cost of air travel in order to make it more popular. It outlines specific goals such as to enable 30 crore domestic ticketing by 2022 and 50 crore by 2027. Though the previous UPA government did not have an exclusive civil aviation policy, the civil aviation targets were part of the 12th Five Year plan documents.
Claim: A National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled in 2016 to transform the sector
Fact: While it is true that the National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled in 2016, it is not clear what the government meant by transformation of the sector. Hence the claim is UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: September 21, 2018


text:
Fact Check: Are more people travelling in Airplanes than in AC trains? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 4, 2018
One of the infographics on the government’s 48-month portal makes certain claims about the expansion of the aviation sector in the past 4 years under the NDA government . Here is a fact check of these claims.
One of the infographics on the government’s 48-month portal makes certain claims about the expansion of the aviation sector under the NDA government in the past 4 years. Let’s verify each of these claims. The following claims were made in the infographic;
Claim 1: India is now the third largest aviation market
The  “largest aviation market” is defined as largest traffic to, from and within a country as per the International Air Transport Association (IATA),  the premier trade association of the world’s airlines.
According to CAPA – Centre for Aviation, as of April 2018, the top 5 largest domestic aviation markets are United States, China, India, Japan and Indonesia. Although India is the world’s third largest domestic aviation market, it is not the third largest aviation market. According to IATA, India is projected to be in the top 3 largest aviation markets surpassing UK by 2025.
Claim Check: Thus, it is the third largest domestic aviation market and not the world’s third largest aviation market. Hence the first claim is only PARTIALLY TRUE.
Claim 2: Passenger traffic growth is in the range of 18-20% over the past three years
As per domestic traffic reports from 2014 to 2018, released by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), a table with the number of passengers carried during that period by domestic airlines has been compiled. The numbers are cumulative and so the value for the month of March is the number of people who have flown domestically between January and March of that year. All figures are in lakhs.
The annual passenger traffic growth has been calculated by using the domestic passengers’ data for each calendar year. This shows the percentage increase in passenger traffic from one year to the next at the end of the year. We find that for the past three years, passenger air traffic has been growing at an average of 20% and is in the range of 17-23%.
Claim Check: Thus, the second claim that passenger traffic growth has been between 18-20% is MOSTLY TRUE.
Claim 3: More people have travelled in airplanes than in AC trains for the first time
To verify the claim about the number of people travelling by air being greater than those travelling by AC train, the passenger data provided in the annual reports of the DGCA were compared with data provided in the statistical statements of the Indian Railways. The Indian Railways publishes an annual document titled ‘Statistical Statements’ that gives a breakup of the number of passengers that were carried in that year by the class in which they travelled. This data was aggregated to find the number of people who travelled by AC class in trains between 2012-13 and 2016-17.  Total passenger traffic of the AC class is calculated by including the traffic in AC First Class, AC Sleeper Class, AC 3 Tier & AC Chair Car. Total passenger traffic of Airlines is calculated by including both domestic & international passenger traffic.
Claim Check: We find that for the first time in 2016-17, unlike the previous years, the number of people who travelled by Airplane is higher than those who travelled in all AC class of trains. Thus, the 3rd claim is also TRUE.
Claim 4: Domestic air passengers crossed 100 million in 2017
As noted earlier,  the data from DGCA indicates that, in 2017, the number of passengers carried by domestic airlines was 1171.76 lakhs, or over 117 million.
Claim Check: Thus, the 4th claim is also TRUE.
Claim 5: A National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled in 2016 to transform the sector
In 2016, the National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled, which aimed to expand the aviation sector and reduce the cost of air travel in order to make it more popular. It outlines specific goals such as to enable 30 crore domestic ticketing by 2022 and 50 crore by 2027. Though the previous UPA government did not have an exclusive civil aviation policy, the civil aviation targets were part of the 12th Five Year plan documents.
Claim Check: While it is true that the National Civil Aviation Policy was unveiled in 2016, it is not clear what the government meant by transformation of the sector. Hence this claim could not be fact checked.


text:
Fact Check: Delhi Class XII results & how Manish Sisodia got it wrong - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 31, 2017
The entire media went by Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia’s statements about government schools in Delhi doing 9% better than private schools which is factually incorrect.
CBSE recently released the results of Class XII for the year 2017. Soon after these results were announced, the Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi Manish Sisodia, who also holds the education portfolio took to twitter announcing that Delhi Government schools did better than private schools for a second year in row. He also said that pass percentage ofDelhi Government schools is 88.27% & private schools is 79.27%.
Delhi govt schools get 88.27% results in Class 12. Pvt schools: 79.27%. Govt schools do better than pvt schools, for a second year in row!
— Manish Sisodia (@msisodia) May 28, 2017
He went onto tweet that Delhi government schools had 2% better results than private schools in 2016 and in 2017, the lead increased to 9%.
Last year Delhi govt schools had 2% better result than private schools, this year it is 9% better!
— Manish Sisodia (@msisodia) May 28, 2017
In fact, in a rare case of a BJP Minister appreciating AAP, union minister for Urban Development, Venkaiah Naidu tweeted a Times of India story on these results and said that Delhi government schools taking a 9% lead over private schools is impressive.
Impressive that Govt schools in #Delhi take 9% lead over private institutions in pass percentage of #CbseResults2017https://t.co/m50I0BwvBR
— M Venkaiah Naidu (@MVenkaiahNaidu) May 29, 2017
Almost all media houses like the Times of India, The Hindu, India Today , First Post, Hindustan Times shared these statistics. Times of India has also done an infographic on the Delhi results.
All the media houses went by what Manish Sisodia tweeted and did not care to check the data released by CBSE. CBSE put out a detailed statistical statement like every year and this tells a different story.
Manish Sisodia, in a hurry to prove that Delhi government schools did better than private schools made the mistake of comparing the pass percentage of government schools in Delhi and private schools across India. Let us examine the two the statements made by Manish Sisodia.
While it is true that Delhi government schools did better than Delhi private schools, it is not the first time. It is in fact 3 year in row and not second as Manish Sisodia tweeted. Delhi Government schools have fared better than their private counter parts since 2015. Manish Sisodia’s claim that the pass percentage in Delhi government schools is 88.27% is also factually incorrect. As per CBSE’s official statistical statement, the pass percentage in Delhi government schools is 88.36%. The pass percentage of Delhi private schools is 84.2% and not 79.27% as tweeted by Sisodia. 79.27% is the pass percentage of private schools at an All-India level and not Delhi
Statement 2: Government Schools did 9% better in 2017
Manish Sisodia’s second tweet is about the 9% better results in government schools this year compared to the 2% in 2016.  While he is right about the 2% lead in 2016 (Government: 88.98% Vs Private: 86.67%), he is wrong about the 9% lead in 2017. He calculated the 9% lead taking the All India private schools pass percentage in 2017 which is 79.27% instead of Delhi private schools. The CBSE data shows that the Delhi private schools pass percentage in 2017 is 84.2% and not 79.27% as was claimed by Sisodia and other media houses. If this taken into consideration, then the lead is only 4% and not 9%. One cannot compare Delhi figures in 2016 and All-India figures in 2017.  If the lead was 2% in 2016, then the lead is 4% in 2017.  Else, if the All-India private schools pass percentage is compared in both years, then the lead in 2016 was 6.5% and in 2017 is 9%.
In Delhi, the government schools have maintained a consistent pass percentage of around 88% in each of the years starting 2013. In the same time period, the private schools have slipped from 91.83% in 2013 to 84.2% in 2017. Even at an All-India level, the private schools have slipped from 82.31% in 2013 to 79.27% in 2017. The government schools on the other hand slipped from 84.89% in 2013 to 82.29% in 2017. While the performance of Delhi government schools hasn’t improved in terms of absolute pass percentage during the AAP rule, they have maintained the 88% when all others slipped.


text:
Fact Check: Did Japan & USA enforce temperature setting of Air Conditioners? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 2, 2018
The government issued a set of FAQs after criticism from certain quarters about the recommendations on temperature setting of Air Conditioners. The FAQs also mentioned that Japan & USA enforced similar limits. Here is a Fact Check.
After criticism from certain quarters, the Government of India has published a set of FAQs regarding the recommendations on temperature setting of Air Conditioners. The government explained the recommendations in more detail and also tried to quantify the savings from such a move. In addition, the government also mentioned that India is not the first country to undertake such a measure. The FAQs make a mention of Japan & USA  as countries that have done this earlier. How true is this claim?
What is the actual recommendation made by the government?
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (Ministry of Power) has issued guidelines to major commercial establishments to set the default temperature on Air Conditioners to 24 degree celsius from the conventional 20-21 degree celsius. This move, the government says is to conserve energy  and can result in approximately 24% of energy savings. However, users can adjust  the temperature as per his/her choice. The government’s guidelines mention that temperatures up to 25 degree celsius are quite comfortable for human body, along with desired humidity and air movement values.
The government estimates that the potential for energy conservation through this measure is to the tune of 20 billion units (worth Rs10,000 crores) annually.  As per government’s calculations, even if half (50%) the consumers adopt the recommendations, this would result in about 10 billion units of electricity, which is equivalent to reduction of 8.2 Million tonne of COper year.
These guidelines have been recommended to major commercial establishments such as Airports, Hotels, Shopping Malls, Offices and Government Buildings (Ministries & attached offices, State Government and Public-Sector Undertakings) and are currently voluntary in nature. The government plans to increase awareness and encourage consumers to adopt the guidelines. A public survey would also be conducted after 4-6 months of awareness campaign.
Did other countries also enforce such limits?
The FAQs released by the government make a mention of Japan and the California state in USA  as having enforced such limits. Let us examine these claims.
The case of Japan
Claim: Japan introduced a default setting for air conditioners at 28 degrees Celsius.
Japan, in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, did impose restrictions on power usage and mandated large buildings & businesses to reduce electricity usage by 15%. Fines were also prescribed for companies that use too much power. But these restrictions were withdrawn in September 2011.
Japan also runs a ‘Cool Biz’ campaign during summer where it encourages people to dress more casually without a tie and a jacket so that they can work comfortably even in a room at 28 degrees Celsius. Japan started the ‘Cool Biz” campaign in 2005. Similarly, a ‘Warm Biz’ campaign is run during winters. Both the campaigns are voluntary in nature.
Claim Check: While Japan has campaigns to limit the power usage and have air conditioners run at 28 degree celsius, it is purely voluntary in nature. Unlike what is claimed,  Japan did not introduce a default setting for air conditioners, but encouraged people & businesses to set the air conditioners at that temperature. So the claim is only partially true.
The case of USA
Claim: In U.S, states like California have enforced limits on lowering the air condition beyond 26 degrees Celsius.
In the case of California, a New York Times article in 2008 talks about the state seeking to control thermostats through a radio controlled device, by sending temperatures up or down. This was contemplated to manage electricity shortages. But this move never seems to have been implemented.
Instead, the state of California currently issues ‘Flex Alerts‘. A ‘Flex Alert’ is a call for consumers to voluntarily conserve electricity when there is a predicted shortage of energy supply, especially if the grid operator needs to dip into reserves to cover demand. These alerts are issued a day in advance so that consumers can better prepare for the event. The campaign asks consumers to set thermostat at 78° F ( ~ 26 degree celsius) or higher. Since the year 2000, ‘Flex Alerts’ have been issued a total of 104 times, with each alert ranging for a few hours to a day.
Claim Check: Again, the flex alerts purely voluntary in nature and there is no enforcement from the government.So this claim is only partially true, with respect to setting the thermostat to 26 degree celsius.


text:
Fact Check: Did PM Modi inaugurate an already open ‘All India Institute of Ayurveda’?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 20, 2017
Some reports claimed that the Prime Minister inaugurated an already open All India Institute of Ayurveda. How true is this claim? Here is a Fact Check.
The Prime Minister recently dedicated to the nation, the All India Institute of Ayurveda (AIIA) in New Delhi’s Sarita Vihar. Narendra Modi’s personal website and the BJP’s official twitter handle reported this as the inauguration of the first ever AIIA.
Today, on National Ayurveda Day, delighted to have dedicated the All India Institute of Ayurveda to the nation. pic.twitter.com/UygY6NkrZg
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) October 17, 2017
A few people in the Congress took exception and the National Herald even did a story saying the AIIA was opened 7 years ago and that the PM inaugurated something that was already open.  So what is the truth? Was the AIIA opened 7 years ago as claimed by the National Herald?
The proposal to set up AIIA dates back to 2005
The reference to AIIA was found as way back as 2005 in the Lok Sabha records. In response to a question in the Lok Sabha in 2005, the then Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare Panabaka Lakshmi said that the proposal was for setting up a National Ayurveda Hospital as a Joint Venture project initially, but was later revised to establish it entirely in the Govt. sector as the AIIA with PG teaching and state-of-art research facilities. She also said that the land allotted by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was inadequate and that additional land was sought. The answer even mentioned that the payment of lease for 11 acres was made in February 2005.
Cabinet Approval to AIIA in 2008
The Union Cabinet gave its approval to setting up of AIIA in January 2008 as per a press release of the government.The original plan was to complete the AIIA by the end of 11th Five-year Plan Period
In February 2008, the then Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare Panabaka Lakshmi said that the AIIA will be a 200 bed research and referral hospital for facilitating clinical research in response to a question in the Lok Sabha.  She also said that the AIIA would be fully functional by the end of XI Five Year Plan, i.e., by March, 2012. According to the response, the AIIA when fully functional will treat about 250-300 O.P.D. patients daily. The same thing was also reiterated in the Rajya Sabha later during that year.Was the AIIA opened in 2010?
The AIIA as planned initially was not complete by 2012. But, a temporary Out Patient (OPD) block of AIIA was built in August 2010 with pre-fabricated material for running OPD services. The OPD block was opened in October 2010 by the then Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare. This was mentioned in a press release by the government and the various annual reports of Department of AYUSH.AIIA was not completed by 2012 as planned
The initial estimated cost for establishing AIIA during the 11th five-year plan period (2007 -2012) was Rs 155 crore (Rs 134 crore capital cost and the remaining recurring expenditure). This was noted in an answer given by the government in the Lok Sabha in 2008. The annual reports and the various budget documents make it clear that the construction was not complete by 2012 as planned. As per the budget documents, only Rs 114.12 crore was allocated for AIIA between 2008-09 and 2011-12 and the actual expenditure was only Rs 74.24 crore during the same period. The total expenditure on AIIA till December 2016 was close to Rs 200 crore and more than 80% of this expenditure (Rs 168 crore) was made during the UPA tenure (by 2013-14).
After the BJP came to power, only Rs 6.49 crore was spent in 2014-15 & 2015-16. In 2016-17, a total of Rs 25 crore was spent till December 2016 as per the 2016-17 annual report. This included recurring expenditure of stipend to P.G. scholars. A press release of the government in 2015 notes that the project cost was revised to Rs 157 crore in 2013.
Construction of AIIA completed during 2016-17
The 2016-17 annual report of the Department of AYUSH notes that the construction of AIIA was complete, but the construction agency had not handed over the building to the government. It also notes that OPD facility (opened in 2010) in all specialties of Ayurveda started operating from the new building during 2016-17. Eventually, the complete building as planned was inaugurated & dedicated to the nation by the Prime Minister recently.
Claim Check: Did the PM inaugurate an already open building?
To put it simply, the Prime Minister did not open an already open building. He inaugurated the AIIA after the construction was complete, albeit after a delay of 5 years. The 2010 opening was a temporary block and did not constitute opening of the full building of the AIIA. It also has to be noted that the proposal for AIIA was floated & approval was given during the UPA tenure. Further, bulk of construction & expenditure was during the UPA’s tenure. The NDA government on its part gave a tender notice for second phase construction of AIIA in February 2017.

created: October 20, 2017


text:
Fact Check: Did the UPA construct only 25 lakh houses in their last 4 years? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 20, 2018
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that the previous UPA government constructed only 25 lakh houses during their last 4 years. We find that this claim is FALSE.
The Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing a gathering to mark the Grihapravesh (housewarming) of Prime Minister Awas Yojana- Grameen (PMAY-G) beneficiaries in Maharashtra, claimed that the UPA constructed only 25 lakh houses during their last four (4) years while the current government constructed 1.25 crore houses in the last four (4) years, one crore more houses. Here is a fact check of this claim.
पिछली सरकार ने अपने आखिरी चार वर्षों में सिर्फ 25 लाख घर बनाए थे, जबकी बीते चार वर्षों में भाजपा के नेतृत्व वाली केंद्र सरकार ने एक करोड़ 25 लाख घर बनाए हैं। सोचिए, एक करोड़ ज्यादा मकान: PM @narendramodi
— PMO India (@PMOIndia) October 19, 2018
What are the different housing schemes of the government?
As per the information available on the government’s housing website, public housing program in India started with the rehabilitation of refugees immediately after independence and since then, it has been a major focus area of the Government as an instrument of poverty alleviation. Rural housing program, as an independent program , started with Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) in 1996.  Although IAY addressed the housing needs in the rural areas, certain gaps were identified during the concurrent evaluations and the performance Audit by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India in 2014. To address these gaps in the rural housing program, the IAY has been re-structured into Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana –Gramin (PMAY-G) in April 2016. The urban equivalent of the scheme was earlier known as the Rajiv Awas Yojana which has now been restructured into the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana –Urban.
How many houses have been constructed over the years?
Multiple government data sources have been looked at to arrive at the number of houses constructed over the years in the rural housing scheme. Information provided by the government in the Rajya Sabha in 2016, in the Lok Sabha in 2018, CAG report of the year 2014, annual reports of the Ministry of Rural development have all been combined to arrive at these figures.
As per these figures, the UPA government constructed a total of 89.65 lakh houses as part of the IAY in their last four years between 2010-11 & 2013-14. The current government on the other hand constructed a total of 111.44 lakh houses in their first four years between 2014-15 & 2017-18.
As far as UPA’s last four years in concerned, the Prime Minister was way off the mark. The UPA constructed 89.65 lakh houses,  almost 3.5 times the number of houses claimed by the PM. As far as the current government is concerned and if the houses constructed in the last six months is also taken into account, the figure might be closer to the 1.25 crore houses as mentioned by the PM. It has to be noted that this is only the count of rural houses for both governments. If the urban housing numbers are also included, then the numbers for both the governments could be higher.
Claim: The previous UPA government constructed only 25 lakh houses in their last 4 years where as the current government in the last 4 years constructed 1.25 crore houses, a difference of 1 crore houses.
Fact: The UPA in its last 4 years constructed 89.65 lakh houses and not 25 lakh houses. Hence the claim is FALSE.
How did various governments fare?
In general, the number of houses constructed has seen an increasing trend over the years. The NDA-1 government under Vajpayee on average constructed around 11.68 lakh houses per year during their 6 year tenure. The average under UPA-1 was 17.39 lakh houses per year where as it was 24.7 lakh houses per year under UPA-2. Under the current government, the average per year is more than UPA 2, at 27.86 lakh per year.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 20, 2018


text:
Fact Check: Do Women make up for more than 70% beneficiaries of Mudra loans?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
May 1, 2019
In this article, we fact check some numbers
related to the MUDRA scheme and the Stand Up India scheme.
The government made certain claims about its commitment to social justice in an infographic titled ‘promoting entrepreneurship for socio-economic empowerment’. The following article is a fact check of the data provided in the infographic.
What is the MUDRA
scheme?
Pradhan Mantri MUDRA Yojana (PMMY) is a scheme launched by the PrimeMinister in April 2015 for providing loans up to Rs. 10 lakh to thenon-corporate, non-farm small/micro enterprises. These loans are classified asMUDRA loans under PMMY. These loans are given by Commercial Banks, RRBs, SmallFinance Banks, Cooperative Banks, MFIs and NBFCs. The borrower can approach anyof the lending institutions mentioned above or can apply online through theportal.
However, ithas to noted that the focus on the MSME sector is not a new phenomenon. Thefirst NDA government launched the Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for MSMEs inAugust 2000 to provide guarantee cover for collateral free credit facilitiesextended to micro and small enterprises (MSEs). During the UPA, the Governmenthad constituted a Prime Minister’s Task Force on Micro, Small & MediumEnterprises (MSME) in September
2009, which submitted its report in January 2010. The report hadmade recommendations in the areas of credit, marketing, labour issues,rehabilitation and exit policy, infrastructure/technology/skill development,taxation and special measures for North-Eastern Region and Jammu & Kashmir.
Among other things, the recommendations of thetask force also include advice to the banks to achieve a 20% year-on-yeargrowth in credit to MSEs and a 10% annual growth in the number of microenterprise accounts.  The banks have also been advised that the allocationof 60% of the MSE advances to the micro enterprises is to be achieved in stagesviz., 50 per cent in the year 2010-11, 55 per cent in the year 2011-12 and 60per cent in the year 2012-13. Many other steps were also recommended and some were implemented during the previousgovernment. PMMY being implemented by the current government is a dedicatedscheme for MSEs that led to the establishment of Micro Units Development &Refinance Agency Ltd (MUDRA). MUDRA bank is essentially a refinancinginstitution and does not directly lend loans to end customers. Rather, theloans are given by Commercial Banks, RRBs, Small Finance Banks, CooperativeBanks, MFIs and NBFCs.
Has the lending target
under MUDRA scheme been increased?
The first claim is that the lending target under the MUDRA scheme hasbeen enhanced to 3 lakh rupees for the financial year 2018-19. In Union Budget speech (2018-19), Arun Jaitley said ‘it is proposed to set a target of 3 lakh
crore for lending under MUDRA for 2018-19 after having successfully exceeded
the targets in all previous years’.
Claim: The lending target under the MUDRA scheme has been enhanced to 3 lakh rupees for the financial year 2018-19.
Fact: It is proposed to set a target of 3 lakh crore for lending under MUDRA for 2018-19. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
What is the
demographic division of MUDRA account loans?
The secondrelated claim is that ‘of the total loan accounts (under the MUDRA scheme),
76% are of women and over 50% are SCs, STs and OBCs’.
The PMMY website has year wise performance reports on thewebsite. Data from these reports suggests that out of a total of 12.27 croreloan accounts under the MUDRA scheme between 2015-16 and 2017-18, 9.03 crorebelong to women entrepreneurs and 6.71 crore belong to SCs/STs/OBCs. Hence thepercentage of loan accounts belonging to women is around 74% while thosebelonging to SCs/STs/OBCs is around 55%.
Claim: of the total loan accounts (under the MUDRA scheme), 76% are of women and over 50% are SCs, STs and OBCs.
Fact: Data from performance reports of PMMY suggests that out of a total of 12.27 crore loan accounts under the MUDRA scheme between 2015-16 and 2017-18, 9.03 crore belong to women entrepreneurs and 6.71 crore belong to SCs/STs/OBCs. Hence the percentage of loan accounts belonging to women is around 74% while those belonging to SCs/STs/OBCs is around 55%. Hence the claim is TRUE.  However, it has to be noted that focus on the MSE sector is not a new phenomenon.
What is the Stand-up India scheme?
Government of India launched the Stand Up India scheme in April 2016. Stand Up Indiascheme caters to promoting entrepreneurship amongst Women, SC & ST categoryi.e. those section of the population facing significant hurdles due to lack ofadvice/ mentorship as well as inadequate and delayed credit. The scheme intendsto leverage the institutional credit structure to reach out to these underservedsectors of the population in starting greenfield enterprise. It caters to bothready and trainee borrowers. The Scheme facilitates bank loans between Rs.10lakh and Rs.1 crore to at least one Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe borrowerand at least one Woman borrower per bank branch of Scheduled Commercial Banksfor setting up greenfield enterprises in trading, manufacturing and servicessector. 51% of the shareholdingand controlling stake has to be held by an SC/ST of woman entrepreneur in caseof a non-individual enterprise.
To extend collateralfree coverage, Government of India has set up the Credit Guarantee Fund forStand Up India (CGFSI). The scheme is built on the concept of providinghandholding support to those borrowers who might have a project in mind butlack the confidence and capability to start up. It also provides forconvergence with Central/State Government schemes. Applications under thescheme can also be made online. An online tracking system in thededicated Stand Up India portal is beingutilized.  As of December 2018, more than 68000 loans have been sanctioned under the scheme out of which53,284 are disbursed.
How many loans were
sanctioned under the Stand-up India scheme?
The thirdclaim is that, ‘under Stand up India
mission, 54,733 loans were sanctioned by the banks to SC, ST and women
borrowers (up to February 2018)’.
The annual report  (2017-18) of the Department of Financial Services,published in March 2018 puts this number at 50887. This data was till the 10 of January 2018 only. More updated data was provided in a Lok Sabha answer on the 9 March 2018 which statesthat ‘loans extended as on 04.03.2018 since inception of the scheme is 54,947’.
Claim: Under Stand up India mission, 54,733 loans were sanctioned by the banks to SC, ST and women borrowers (up to February 2018).
Fact: Up to the 9 March 2018, the loans extended under the Stand-up India scheme are 54,947. The numbers are higher than the ones in the claim because of the dynamic nature of data collection. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How much money was
sanctioned to SC entrepreneurs?
The fourthclaim related to the previous one is that, ‘under
the same scheme, 239.12 crores for SC entrepreneurs (up to May 2018)’.
According to an answer provided in Lok Sabha, a total of 9477 loanshave been sanctioned for SC entrepreneurs, while 7263 loans have been disbursedas of December 2018. The annual report (2017-18) of the Department ofFinancial Services shows that Rs, 1344.7 crore rupees have been sanctioned toSCs under 7086 accounts, by January of 2018. It is not known as to what part ofthe sanctioned amount is disbursed.
Claim: Under the Stand-up India scheme, 239.12 crores for SC entrepreneurs (up to May 2018).
Fact: Up until January of 2018, Rs. 1,344.7 crore rupees have been sanctioned for SC entrepreneurs. It is not known as to what part of the sanctioned amount is disbursed. Hence, the claim remains UNVERIFIED.
Is a new venture
capital fund for OBCs launched?
The finalclaim, also related to the previous two is that, ‘a new venture capital fund for OBCs is to be launched with an initial
corpus of 200 crore rupees’.
A new venture capital fund for OBCs was announced in the 2018-19 budget, but noallocation was made. Budget allocations were made in the 2019-20 budget for such a fund, but there is no evidence ofthe fund being launched.
Claim: A new venture capital fund for OBCs is to be launched with an initial corpus of 200 crore rupees, under the Stand-up India scheme.
Fact: A new venture capital fund for OBCs was announced in the 2018-19 budget, but no allocation was made. Budget allocations were made in the 2019-20 budget for such a fund, but there is no evidence of the fund being launched.  Hence this claim remains UNVERIFIED.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here


text:
Fact-Check: Piyush Goyal’s tweet about ‘Trade Surplus of Goods'
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 20, 2020
Union Minister Piyush Goyal tweeted recently saying that for the first time in 18 years, India reported a trade surplus of goods in June 2020 and that this is a step towards ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’. Does his tweet and interpretation of the data present the actual picture of India’s trade? Here is a fact-check.
Addressing the nation on 12 May 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for Atmanirbhar Bharat or Self-Reliant India. Recently on 15 July 2020, Union Minister of Commerce & Industry, Piyush Goyal has tweeted that June’2020 witnessed ‘Monthly Goods Trade surplus’ for the first time in  18 years. The tweet further emphasises that there is a rapid turnaround of exports and that it is a realization of PM’s vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat.
The tweet further compared goods trade data of June 2020 with the same month previous year i.e. June 2019, to conclude that June 2020 has a ‘Goods Trade Surplus’ of $ 0.80 Billion, while in June 2019, there was a Goods Trade Deficit of $ 15.3 Billion. He also claimed that the monthly trade surplus was witnessed for the first time in 18 years.
Rapid Turnaround of Exports: Realising PM @NarendraModi ji’s vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat, for the first time in 18 years, India records a monthly goods trade surplus in June!
📖 https://t.co/Bb0Lryjzg5 pic.twitter.com/y1pDhp0kvi
How true are the statements of Piyush Goyal? Here is a fact-check of these claims.
Claim: Monthly Goods Trade surplus for the first time in 18 years and is a realisation of the vision of Aatmanirbhar Bharat.
Fact: While the monthly trade surplus is a fact, it is due to the contraction in the overall trade rather than an increase in exports over imports. Hence the claim is MISLEADING and doesn’t present the complete picture.
Considerable contraction in the volume of trade compared to last year
As per the information provided in the press release of Ministry of Commerce & Industry ( the link is also provided in Piyush Goyal’s tweet ), the trade balance of merchandise (goods) for June’2020 is a surplus of  $ 0.79 Billion, whereas in June’ 2019 it is a deficit of $ 15.28 Billion.
The huge deficit in June 2019, is due to the greater volume of imports which was way higher than the exports.  The total value of imports of goods in June 2019 was $ 40.29 Billion , while only $ 25.01 Billion worth of goods were exported.
While, the trade balance shows a surplus in June’2020,  the overall volume of trade is less than June’2019. While the value of imports is nearly half of June’2019 with only  $ 21.11 Billion, the value of exports is also less than that of last year with only $ 21.91 Billion. This clearly indicates that the surplus achieved in June’2020 is because of the huge fall in the value of imports, rather than any increase in the exports.
This contraction of trade is also reflected in the quarterly figures. For the quarter April-June’2020, the total value of imports of goods amounted to $ 60.44 Billion which is less than half of the Imports during April-June’2019 which was $ 127.04 Billion. The value of Indian exports was no better in terms of volume with, $ 51.32 Billion worth of exports during April-June’ 2020 compared to $ 81.08 Billion in 2019-20.
While the data for the specific month of June’2020 is in contrast to the general trend of deficit in balance of trade (BoT) for Goods, it is more a reflection of the current times impacted by COVID-19, rather than any material improvement in exports and reduced dependence on imports.
Fall in Imports of key commodities with no known Domestic substitution
The press release by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry provides further details about the goods being traded and the volume of import & export.
As per these estimates, the import value of most of the top 10 high value imports fell by at least 50% in June’20 compared to that of June’19, with the value of imports of few of these commodities falling by at least 70%.
‘Petroleum, Crude & Products’ form a major portion of India’s Imports. The Imports are generally categorised as Petroleum & Non-petroleum imports, signifying the value of this commodity in the overall imports. The imports of Petroleum & related products fell from around $ 11 Billion in June’2019  to $ 4.9 Billion in June’2020 i.e. a reduction of around 55 % from the same month last year. With no significant increase in domestic production of petroleum, the fall in the imports can be attributed to the fall in consumption due to the lockdown over the past 4 months.
Electronic Goods also witnessed a fall in imports compared to last year, though the extent of reduction is comparably lower than other commodities. Electronic goods imports constitute telecom & electronic instruments apart from various components. The fall in the imports could be a reflection of decrease in the activity/demand of the industry dependent on these components and the lack of interest in citizens to buy those goods during these uncertain.
The fall in the business activity is also reflected in other top import categories which in most of cases are raw material for various industries. The reduction in the commercial and industrial activity can also be ascertained from the fall of exports of finished products like Jewellery, Engineering goods, Textiles etc.
What does all this mean?
It is true that June’2020 is the month that reported a surplus in trade of goods. However, the same cannot be attributed to be a step towards the vision of Atmanirbhar Bharat. As the data indicates, the slowdown of economy & industrial activity due to COVID-19 induced lockdown is the major factor in the fall of imports rather than India substituting these commodities domestically.  Atmanirbhar Bharat is a long-term vision to provide impetus to domestic production of goods that are currently imported to effectively reduce the reliance on imports.
Hence, the tweet of Piyush Goyal is MISLEADING and does not present the complete picture.
Featured Image: Trade Surplus of Goods


text:
Fact Check: Has the Government reduced over 60% budget for RTI? - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 2, 2018
Media quoted a PTI story that mentioned about the 63% reduction in the 2018-19 budget for RTI & CIC. While the reduction is true, it is because of the reduced capital outlay for the new CIC building which is more or less ready.
Media picked up a PTI story about the 63% reduction in the funds allocated to the Central Information Commission (CIC)  and Right to Information Act (RTI)  in the 2018-19 budget. Did the government actually reduce the budget for CIC & RTI? Here is a Fact Check.
The Budget for CIC & RTI
The budget for the CIC is allocated under two different heads. One of them is for the establishment related expenditure like salaries etc. This amount is allocated for the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) and CIC under one head.
The allocation for establishment related expenditure has increased to Rs 31.43 crore in the revised budget of 2017-18. The allocation in the budget proposals for 2018-19 has reduced to Rs 26.54 crore, a reduction of around 15%.
What about other allocations?
Allocations to CIC & RTI are also made under another head. These allocations are exclusively for CIC & RTI related activities. The allocations are for Construction of new building of the CIC, CICs project on effective implementation of RTI Act, dak digitization, setting up of video conferencing facilities, preparation of publicity material on RTI, setting up of Call Centre and establishment of wing for transparency and accountability studies for CIC. The allocations also include funds for the Department of Personnel & Training’s (DoPT) propagation of RTI Act.
The allocations under this head are made for both revenue & capital expenditure. The capital expenditure is primarily for the new building of the CIC. The significant reduction of Rs 14.65 crore in 2018-19 is in the capital expenditure. This is because the CIC’s new building is almost ready and will not require similar amount of funding in 2018-19. The CIC had in fact floated a tender in July 2017 for shifting of furniture and files from its old building to the new building.
The allocation for revenue expenditure for CIC & RTI has also reduced, but by only about 5% compared to 2017-18. From Rs 6.96 crore in 2017-18, the allocation has reduced to Rs 6.66 crore in 2018-19.
Fact Check
While it is true that the overall allocation for CIC & RTI has come down in 2018-19, it is largely on account of the reduced outlay for capital expenditure since the construction of new CIC building is almost complete.

created: February 2, 2018


text:
Fact Check: Has Accessibility for PwDs improved in the last four years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 17, 2018
Another infographic of the government makes certain claims about the Accessible India Campaign. How many of these claims are true?
Making claims about accessibility in India, the government has published an infographic on the 48 months website. The information provided makes claims about the interventions and achievements in terms of making India more accessible for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). Here is a fact check of the four claims made in the following infographic.
What is the Accessible India campaign?
The Prime Minister launched Accessible India Campaign (AIC) in December 2015, for creating universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in Built Environment, Transport, and Information & Communication Technology (ICT) ecosystem. The campaign is based on the principles of the Social Model of Disability, that disability is caused by the way society is organized, and not the person’s limitations and impairments. The Campaign’s vision is to build an inclusive society in which equal opportunities are provided for the growth and development of PwDs so that they can lead productive, safe and dignified lives.
Have government buildings been made accessible?
The first claim of the government is that they are converting at least 50% of all the government buildings in the national capital and all state capitals ‘fully accessible’. According to the annual report of the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (DEPwD) under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the phase II target of the accessible India mission is ‘making 50% of all the government buildings of NCT and all the State capitals fully accessible by December 2018.’  According to the same report, this target is to be reached and implemented by the state governments with their own funds.
According to the answer provided in the Lok Sabha in March 2018, of the central government buildings, 75 central government buildings were identified by the CPWD (Central Public Works Department) in 39 cities of which, retrofitting in 58 buildings in 27 cities have been completed. 123 buildings have been identified for phase II  (to be completed by July 2018) and 21 more for phase III (to be completed by July 2019). These numbers do not necessarily add up to 50% of all government buildings in the National Capital Territory (NCT) and in all state capitals since the number of government buildings in not known.
Claim: Converting at least 50% of all the government buildings in the national capital and all state capitals fully accessible.
Fact: 58 out of the 75 selected central government buildings in 39 cities have been retrofitted as of March 2018. Since the claim is talking about a future target and not an achievement, it remains UNVERIFIED
What is the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan?
The second claim is that the Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan has been launched by the government on 3rd December 2015 to provide dignity to Divyangs. This is the same as the accessible India campaign described above.
Claim: Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan has been launched by the government on 3rd December 2015 to provide dignity to divyangs.
Fact: Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan is the same as the accessible India campaign. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
How have aids and assistive devices been distributed?
The third claim is that special camps have been organized for distribution of aids and assistive devices to 8 lakh persons with disabilities. The DEPwD is implementing different schemes. The Scheme of Assistance to Disabled Persons for purchase/fitting of aids/appliances (ADIP) is responsible for the distribution of aids and assistive devices. Special camps are conducted based on the proposals received from Members of Parliament and other dignitaries under ADIP Scheme. According to the annual report (2017-18) of the DEPwD, 275 Mega Camps/Special Camps were organized covering 27 States for distribution of aids and assistive devices under the ADIP Scheme at the cost of about Rs.237.67 crore reaching  3.01 lakh beneficiaries.  However, under ADIP Scheme in general,  approximately 9.35 lakh beneficiaries were provided aids & assistive devices through 6073 camps during the last 4 years.  Even during the UPA government, an average of 2.5 lakh beneficiaries per year were provided with aids & assistive devices under the ADIP as per an answer in the Lok Sabha.
Claim: Special camps have been organized for distribution of aids and assistive devices to 8 lakh persons with disabilities.
Fact: 275 Mega Camps/Special Camps were organized benefitting 3.01 lakh Divyangjans during the last four years. The total number of beneficiaries of the ADIP program in the last four years is more than 9 lakh, but the number of beneficiaries of special camps is only 3.01 lakh. Hence, the claim is FALSE. It also has to be noted that the average number of beneficiaries per year under this scheme during the UPA was also around 2.5 lakh, which has not changed during the current government.
How many access audits have been conducted?
The final claim is that access audit of 1662 important buildings in 50 cities has been completed till date. The manner & form of an audit report can be understood from one such report submitted for the accessible India campaign. The report says that, ‘Access Audit has been undertaken to appraise defined areas of the existing buildings/campus to access the extent of accessibility to services and facilities and propose the extent of works required to improve the current facilities in accordance with the definitions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The audit takes into account the needs of people with mobility impairments (including wheelchair users) and sensory impairments. The audit will identify physical barriers to access against pre-determined criteria.’ The audit report details the availability of various things like ramps etc. It also has recommendations to be implemented to make the building accessible.
According to the annual report (2017-18) of the DEPwD,  1662 access audit reports were submitted to the State Nodal Officers. Corroborating this is the answer provided in the Lok Sabha, which says that ‘access audits of 1662 buildings in 50 cities completed by auditors’.
Claim: Access audit of 1662 important buildings in 50 cities has been completed till date.
Fact: Access audits of 1662 buildings in 50 cities completed by auditors. Hence, the claim is TRUE.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 17, 2018


text:
Fact Check:Has Fish production substantially increased during the current government?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 1, 2019
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about fish production in the country. This article is a fact check of the claims.
The BJP government published an infographic on the 48-months portal that makes claims about fish production in the country. This article is a fact check of the claims.What is the Blue Revolution?
As per a response in the Lok Sabha, ‘Government of India  has identified Fisheries as a key sector considering its immense potential for growth, to achieve economic prosperity and nutritional security by effective utilization of water resources in a sustainable manner. Accordingly, the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries has restructured the Central Plan Schemes by merging all fisheries schemes under an umbrella of Blue Revolution. The restructured Scheme on Blue Revolution: Integrated Development and Management of Fisheries approved in December, 2015 by the Government provides for a focused development and management of the fisheries sector to increase both fish production and fish productivity from aquaculture and fisheries resources. This includes both the inland and marine fisheries sector, including deep sea fishing with special focus on modern and innovative techniques. The objectives of the scheme are to
The Blue Revolution scheme also provides for Training, skill development and capacity building programmes for fishers, fish farmers and other The scheme also provides financial assistance for renovation of existing ponds, rejuvenation of urban/semi-urban/rural lakes/tanks for fish culture and establishment of fish hatcheries to ensure supply of quality seeds to fishers and fish farmers at an affordable rate towards enhancement of fish production.’
What is the outlay for Fisheries?
The first claim is that government has provided for ‘integrated development and management of fisheries with an outlay of Rs. 3000 crores.’
According to the expenditure budget of 2018-19, the revised budget estimates for integrated development and management of fisheries for the year 2017-18  is Rs. 301.73 crores while for the year of 2018-19, it is Rs. 632.61 crores.
The actual expenditure on ‘Blue Revolution’ in 2016-17 is Rs. 387.81 crores. There was no allocation for ‘integrated development and management of fisheries’ as a separate head before 2017-18.  In fact, this particular head is not seen in the previous year budget documents.
The following chart shows the actual expenditure of the fisheries department (allocations have been made under the name of blue revolution since 2012-13). The total expenditure during UPA-2 was Rs. 1631 crores and the expenditure during the current government (including 2018-19 budget estimates) is Rs. 1920 crores. These numbers do not add up to the figure of Rs. 3000 crores as mentioned in the infographic.
Claim: Government has provided for integrated development and management of fisheries with an outlay of Rs. 3000 crores.
Fact: The total expenditure during UPA-2 was Rs. 1631 crores and the expenditure during the current government (including 2018-19 budget estimates) is Rs. 1920 crores. These numbers do not add up to the figure of Rs. 3000 crores as mentioned in the infographic. Hence, the claim is FALSE.
Has Fish Production increased?
The second claim is that ‘Fish production increased from 186.12 tonnes during 2012-14 to 209.59 tonnes during 2014-16’. The numbers are odd since the production in the entire country will be a few lakh tonnes. Hence the assumption is that the numbers in the infographic mean lakh tonnes.
According to one response in Lok Sabha, the fish production during the year 2012-13 was 9040.34 thousand tonnes or 90.4 lakh tonnes. In the following year of 2013-14, production increased to 95.78 lakh tonnes. The total production for the two years (2012-14) adds up to 186.18 lakh tonnes.
As per another answer in Lok Sabha, the fish production for the year 2014-15 was 102.6 lakh tonnes and for the year 2015-16 was 107.62 tonnes. Hence the total production for the years of 2014-16 was 210.2 lakh tonnes.
Based on the annual report 2017-18 of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, responses to Lok Sabha question 451,  question 3796 and response to Rajya Sabha question 1763,  the following chart is made. The chart shows production of fish in the country since 2004-05 in lakh tonnes.
As per official data, the increase in fish production during UPA-1 was 19%, was 25.7% during UPA-2 and 31.7% in the first four years of the current government. The data clearly suggests that the fish production increased substantially during the current government.
Claim: Fish production increased from 186.18 lakh tonnes during 2012-14 to 210.2 lakh tonnes during 2014-16.
Fact: The total fish production increased from 186.18 lakh tonnes during 2012-14 to 210.2 lakh tonnes during 2014-16. Hence the claim is TRUE. Further, as per official data, the increase in fish production during UPA-1 was 19%, was 25.7% during UPA-2 and 31.7% in the first four years of the current government.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here

created: February 1, 2019


text:
Fact Check: Has India been attracted more FDI in the last few years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 30, 2018
In an infographic published on the 48-Month portal, the government made certain claims about attracting foreign investment and driving economic growth. Here is a fact check of these claims.
In an infographic published on the 48-Month portal, the government made certain claims about attracting foreign investment and driving economic growth. Here is a fact check of these claims.
What about FDI Equity flow?
The first claim is that FDI equity flow has gone up by 47%.  The OECD defines FDI flows as the ‘value of cross-border transactions related to direct investment during a given period of time, usually a quarter or a year. Financial flows consist of equity transactions, reinvestment of earnings, and intercompany debt transactions. Outward flows represent transactions that increase the investment that investors in the reporting economy have in enterprises in a foreign economy, such as through purchases of equity or reinvestment of earnings.  Inward flows represent transactions that increase the investment that foreign investors have in enterprises resident in the reporting economy. FDI flows are measured in USD and as a share of GDP.’
The claim is vague in terms of defining the years of comparison for FDI equity flow. Assuming that the claim refers to inflows and the years of comparison are the same as the ones for the next claim (i.e. 2013-14 and 2016-17), the percentage increase in FDI equity inflow is 79%. The FDI  equity inflow in 2013-14 is USD 24.299 billion  and in 2016-17 is USD 43.478 billion. Hence it is not true. If we consider different combinations of base year and comparison year, the numbers vary greatly between 40% to 77% but none of them add up to 47%. The numbers can be corroborated from different sources including the data published by Department of Industrial policy and Promotion, and answers provided in the Lok sabha on 19th March and 23rd July of 2018.
Claim: FDI equity flow has gone up by 47%.
Fact: The claim is very vague and the available data does not corroborate this number. Hence the claim is FALSE.
Has FDI inflow increased substantially?
The second claim in the infographic is that there has been a rise from 36.05 billion USD in 2013-14 to 60.08 billion USD in 2016-17. Though the claim does not particularly explain what these numbers refer to, they correspond to India’s Gross Foreign Direct Investment (Gross FDI). The reserve bank of India maintains & publishes the ‘Foreign Investment Flows’ data every year.It can be seen from the data that that though the numbers in the infographic are correct, there has been an upward trend in the gross FDI of the country since 2005-06. While gross FDI refers to the amount of money that has come into the country, investment can also be repatriated from the country. So, in order to get a better picture of FDI in the country, the net FDI (calculated after subtracting the repatriated amount from the gross FDI amount) needs to be analysed. Vivek Kaul analysed this earlier in his column on the Equity Master.As it can be seen from the data, repatriation/disinvestment is also on the rise along with the increase of gross FDI inflows. Till 2008-09, the gross & net FDI were equal since there was virtually no disinvestment or repatriation. Starting 2008-09, the gross & net FDI numbers have diverged as noted by Vivek Kaul in his column on the Equity Master.  It should also be noted that while gross FDI inflow has increased continuously over the years, the net FDI has actually fallen both in 2016-17 as well as 2017-18. The net FDI (direct investment to India) fell from USD 44.907 billion in 2015-16 to USD 39.431 billion in 2017-18.
What about FDI to GDP ratio?
Another important indicator to comprehensively understand the trend in FDI inflows is the FDI to GDP ratio. This is essential to understand if the FDI inflows are keeping pace with the growth in economy. World Bank data updated in September of 2018 shows a decreasing trend in the last few years. This ratio was the greatest during UPA-1 (3.7) just before the global financial crisis. The FDI to GDP ratio in 2017 is the 2nd lowest after 2005. Further, there have been changes to the FDI policy in recent times where the FDI cap was increased in multiple sectors which could have contributed to increase in gross FDI.
Claim: There has been a rise from 36.05 billion USD in 2013-14 to 60.08 billion USD in 2016-17
Fact: Assuming that the numbers correspond to India’s Gross Foreign Direct Investment, the claim is TRUE. However, India’s net FDI inflows and the FDI to GDP ratio have decreased in the last two years
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: October 30, 2018


text:
Fact Check: Has India improved in Global EoDB & Competitiveness Index rankings in the last 4 years?
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 26, 2018
One of the infographics on the ’48 Months’ portal‘ of the government highlights improvements India has made in its ranking in two prominent global indices on business environment. Rankings such as these are meant to give an indication of how conducive a country is for businesses, and thus how favorable it is for investment. It has to be noted that different indices may use different criteria. Improvement in these ranks is meant to indicate that over time, the country has become more favorable for investment and this should encourage foreign investors.
The Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) ranks are released by the World Bank annually and measures aspects of business regulation affecting domestic small and medium-size firms  and located in the largest business city of each economy. In addition, for 11 economies a second city is covered. Even in India’s case, both Mumbai & Delhi are covered for the 2018 rankings.
The Global Competitiveness Index is a similar index released annually by the World Economic Forum that defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country.
This infographic claims that there has been a significant improvement in India’s rankings on both these indices during the time of the NDA government. Here is a fact check of these claims.
India’s ranking in the Global Competitiveness Index for the past 10 years is the following.
Between 2014-15 and 2016-17, which is the period that the claim looks at, there has been a large scale jump in India’s rank from 71 to 39. Thus the claim made about India moving up in the Global Competitiveness Ranks is true. But it does not present the complete picture. For one, in the year 2017-2018 the rank has fallen to 40. The infographic does not consider 2017-18 ranking though it does the same for the EoDB. Also, if we look at the rankings for the entire decade, they have been around 45 to 50 making the improvement from 71 to 39 seems less significant, because 2014-15 was an odd year when the rank fell dramatically. However, it has to be acknowledged that India’s rank saw significant improvement between 2014-15 and 2016-17.
Though the claim that India’s ranking in the Global Competitiveness Index has significantly improved between 2014-15 and 2016-17 is it does not consider 2017-18 ranking and also does not consider India’s ranking in the last decade.
India’s rank in the Ease of Doing Business Index  (EoDB) of the World Bank for the last decade is given in the table below.
As claimed in the infographic, India’s rank improved significantly from 142 in 2015 to 100 in 2018, a jump of 42 ranks.  Though there was no significant improvement in India’s rank in both 2016 & 2017, the year 2018 saw an improvement of 30 ranks. Factly had also reported earlier that India’s jump of 30 ranks is the best ever in the EoDB rankings.
The claim that India’s rank in the EoDB has significantly improved between 2015 & 2018 is
It is important to note is that the criteria for these indices is not fixed. The methodology for calculating these ranks often change, and that can result in movement up and down without significant change in the business environment. For the 2018 EoDB rankings, there were significant changes to the methodology. This year in particular, there was a lot of criticism around these changes and claims that there were political motivations behind the changes. The World Bank’s Chief Economist at the time Paul Romer, was alleged to have told Wall Street Journal in an interview that the changes to methodology were targeting left leaning countries such as Chile. This created quite a storm resulting in the world bank commission an external audit on the integrity of these rankings. The external audit concluded that there was no manipulation in the rankings. The report went onto say that frequent methodology changes reduce the value of the indicators to researchers, policy makers & the media. It recommended the world bank to minimize methodology changes except to fix confirmed problems with existing methodology
Thus, although the claims made are true, they do not paint the whole picture. The starting point for calculation is conveniently a year in which the ranks were abnormally low, and there is no mention of that fact. Looking at the trend of previous years (of the previous government) along with an understanding of the methodology changes would give a better understanding of the actual change in India’s ranking over the years.
This story is part of a larger series on the 4-years of the Modi government. This series has been made possible with the flash grant of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN). Read the rest of the stories in this series here.

created: September 26, 2018