text:
More than 95% of the complaints received by Ombudsman for NBFCs & Digital Transactions in 2020-21 disposed
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 5, 2022
Like in the case of the Banking Ombudsman, the disposal rate of complaints received under both the Ombudsman scheme for NBFCs & Digital Transactions increased in the year 2020-21. A substantial number of complaints are still non-maintainable which is a cause for concern.
Apart from the Banking Ombudsman Scheme which resolves complaints relating to Banking transactions, the facility of Ombudsman also exists for any complaints relating to Non-Banking Financial Corporations (NBFCs) & Digital Transactions.
The Ombudsman Scheme for Non-Banking Financial Companies (OSNBFC) was introduced in 2018, for enabling the resolution of complaints regarding NBFCs registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions (OSDT), was introduced in 2019, to facilitate the settlement of complaints regarding digital transactions of customers of System Participants. System participant implies any person ‘other than a bank’ participating in payment under Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007. Even these two schemes are part of the RBI’s recently launched Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 (RB-IOS).
In this story, we analyze the trends relating to OSNBFC & OSDT, as per the information provided in the Annual Report of Ombudsman Schemes for the year 2020-21.
90% increase in the complaints received under OSNBFC
In the first year after the OSNBFC was introduced i.e., during 2017-18, only 675 complaints were received. During the first complete year of operation during 2018-19, a total of 3,991 complaints were received. In the ensuing year of 2019-20, there was an exponential increase by almost 5-times in the number of complaints received under OSNBFC with 19.43 thousand complaints. During the transition year of 2020-21, a total of 26.95 thousand complaints were received for the 9-months between June 2020 and March 2021.  A year-on-year (YoY) comparison between 2019-20 (July-March) and 2020-21 (April-March) shows a 90% increase in the number of complaints received under OSNBFC.
A major share of the complaints received was through online mode with 47.2% of total complaints in 2020-21(July-March), closely followed by an e-mail with 46.4%. There is an increase in the proportion of complaints received online, compared to 2019-20, when it was 39.8%.
40% of the complaints received by the New Delhi office of OSNBFC
The OSNBFC is administered through four offices located in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai & Chennai to handle the complaints from North, East, West & South respectively. During 2020-21 (June-March), the greatest number of complaints was received by the New Delhi office with 10.7 thousand complaints. This accounts for 39.7% of all the complaints received under OSNBFC. The New Delhi office overtook Mumbai’s position in 2020-21.
Mumbai office received 31% of the complaints in 2020-21. However, in the previous year, it received the greatest number of complaints with over 8 thousand and constituted 41.2% of the total complaints in 2019-20.
Chennai & Kolkata offices have also witnessed an increase in the share of the complaints received in 2020-21. Chennai office, handling the complaints in the South zone accounted for 21.7% of the total complaints in 2020-21.
As was in the case of the banking ombudsman, the cost of handling a complaint decreased with the increase in complaints handled by a specific office. The average cost of handling a complaint during 2020-21was Rs. 1,025 in New Delhi and Rs. 1,235 in Mumbai. Comparatively, it is higher in Kolkata & Chennai with Rs. 3,617 and Rs. 2,107 respectively. The average cost of handling a complaint under OSNBFC is Rs. 1,692, slightly more than the cost of handling a complaint by the banking ombudsman.
The greatest number of complaints about Non-Adherence to FPC
Around 51.5% of the complaints received in 2020-21 were related to non-deposit-taking NBFCs while 32.8% were about deposit-taking NBFCs. Among the complaints received in 2020-21, 54.8% were the complaints relating to ‘Non-adherence to FPC’. FPC implies Fair Practices Code to be followed by NBFCs. Out of the 26.9 thousand complaints in the year, 14.75 thousand were under this category. Even in the previous year i.e., 2019-20, this category constituted the greatest number of complaints, though their share was lower.
Non-observance of RBI directions constituted the second-highest category, with 11.1% in 2020-21, but the share of these complaints fell from 18.6% in 2019-20.  Levy of Charges without prior notice and non-transparency in contract/loan is the other major categories under which complaints were received. The share of non-transparency in contract/loans has reduced in 2020-21.
95% of the complaints under OSNBFC were disposed
Out of the 29.35 thousand complaints handled under the OSNBFC in 2020-21, 28.03 thousand were disposed of. This accounts for a 95.5% disposal rate. About 1.3 thousand complaints were carried forward to the next year.
The disposal rate was a slight improvement over the last year when it was already a high of 95.3%. Despite an increase in the number of complaints received, the disposal rate was not affected.
In 2018-19, when the total complaints handled were much lower at 4.02 thousand, the disposal rate was 99%.
Another improvement observed in 2020-21 is the fall in the number of long pending complaints. In 2019-20, out of the 908 complaints pending at the end of the year, 281 were more than 3 months old. However, in 2020-21, out of the 1,319 complaints pending at the end of the year, only 197 were pending for more than 3 months.
Out of the total complaints handled, non-maintainable complaints have the major share with 55.2%. Of the 11.83 thousand maintainable complaints disposed of in 2020-21, 3.49 thousand were related to Bajaj Finance Limited. About 73.7% of the maintainable cases disposed of were through mutual agreement/settlement, while about 26.2% of the disposed cases were rejected.
The three major reasons for non-maintainable complaints were:
99.1% of the complaints handled by OODTs were disposed of in 2020-21.
There was only a slight increase in the number of complaints received under OSDT. In 2020-21 (July-March), a total of 2,946 complaints were received in 9 months. In 2019-20, 2.48 thousand complaints were received. As per YoY comparison, 3.59 thousand complaints were received in 2020-21(April-March).
92.7% of the complaints in 2020-21 (July-March) received were online. This was an improvement of over 90.2% in 2019-20.
85.8% of the complaints received were about pre-paid payment instruments. 31.8% of the complaints received were from North Zone, followed by West Zone. There are 22 offices under the OSDT among which the greatest number of complaints were received by the Mumbai-II office, followed by the Delhi-I & Bhopal offices.
3.17 thousand out of the 3.20 thousand complaints handled under the OSDT in 2020-21 were disposed of i.e., a disposal rate of  99.1%.  A total of 230 complaints were carried forward from the previous year.  In 2019-20, the disposal rate was 90.9 %. By the end of 2020-21, only 28 complaints were pending of which 18 were less than one month old.
51% of the complaints under OSDT were about Fund Transfers/UPI etc.
Of the 2,946 complaints received in 2020-21 (July-March), 1,507 complaints were about ‘Fund Transfers/ UPI/ BBPS/ Bharat QR Code’. This accounts for 51% of the total complaints received in 2020-21. Even during 2019-20, most complaints belonged to this category, but with a lower share of 43.9%.
Complaints relating to Mobile or Electronic Fund Transfers constituted 22.9% of the total complaints in 2020-21. In the previous year, they had a higher share of 24.1%.
Disposal Rates higher under OSNBFC & OSDT
Like in the case of the banking ombudsman, the disposal rates by the ombudsman for NBFC and digital transactions are higher and have improved in 2020-21. Most of the complaints were disposed of through mutual agreements. Among the complaints which were non-maintainable, many of them were first resort complaints and the complainants did not reach out to the service providers before contacting the ombudsman.
The 2020-21 annual report for all the three ombudsman makes it clear that the disposal rate across the ombudsman scheme has improved in 2020-21. With the launch of the integrated scheme, one hopes that this would continue to improve.
Featured Image: BI’s Annual Report of Ombudsman Schemes

created: February 5, 2022


text:
Data: More than a four-fold increase in the number of cases registered for ‘Hate Speech’ between 2015 & 2020
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 31, 2021
‘Hate Speech’ is again at the centre of discussion thanks to some recent events. Data from the NCRB reports indicates that the number of cases registered under Section 153A & 153AA (for promoting enmity between groups) increased by more than four-fold between 2015 & 2020.
Video snippets from a recent ‘Dharam Sansad’ event in Haridwar were widely shared across social media, which showed some speakers making alleged hate speech, with some of them calling for violence against Muslims. The police filed an FIR under Section 153A in this regard. This along with a few other incidents of hate speech across the spectrum have once again brought to the fore the discussion around ‘Hate Speech’ and the laws relating to inciting hate against communities.
As the police file cases and the investigation is on, we look at the laws surrounding hate speech and the trends in the incidence and disposal of cases relating to hate speech over the years.
In the first of the two-part series, we review the legal framework of Hate speech in India and the trend in cases registered under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Jurisprudential rationale to restrict free speech in case of Hate speech
In a lecture by Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan, former judge of the Supreme Court of India, hate speech is among the 6 categories where Jurisprudential rationale can be exercised to restrict Free speech. This lecture was published in the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD)’s The Indian Police Journal (April-June 2014).
The Constitution of India and legal procedures have provided measures to ensure the right to free speech to its citizens, which is key to a functioning democracy. Article 19(1)(A)  of the Constitution of India ensures Freedom of Speech and Expression. However, under Article 19(2), incitement to offence is one of the grounds for legislative interference.
Some of the recent incidents include speeches that call for incitement to offence against a particular community and hence cannot be considered as Freedom of Speech and Expression.
As observed in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs Union of India & Ors:
However, there isn’t any legal or connotational definition for Hate speech in India and continues to remain an area of debate and interpretation. The Law Commission of India’s report on hate speech in 2017, provides other examples where the courts looked into the scope of hate speech.
The Law Commission of India in its 2017 report identified criteria that can be used to determine Hate speech. Factly’s story on this report can be read here.
Legal provisions in India relating to Hate speech
As highlighted earlier, there is no specific law in India that defines Hate Speech. However, there are certain legal provisions and legislations that prohibit select forms of speech as exceptions to freedom of speech.
The IPC has specific sections which deal with provisions that are exceptions to freedom of speech and relate to hate speech.
Apart from the IPC, other sections enshrined under – Representation of the People Act, 1951, Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988, The Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1995, etc. among others are also related to hate speech. s
Among these sections, Section 153A specifically deals with promoting enmity between the groups.
The National Crime Record Bureau’s annual Crime in India (CII) report provides details of the cases booked under IPC Sections 153A & I53AA and the disposal of the same by the police and the courts.
In this story, we look at the trend in the incidence of crime under these two sections of the IPC, the data of which is provided in the CII reports. It ought to be noted that as per the methodology followed by NCRB for the CII report, the data is based on the number of incidents that led to the registration of the crime & filing of a ‘First Information Report (FIR)’. This does not necessarily reflect the actual number of incidents that might have occurred. In addition, the NCRB follows the ‘Principal Offence Rule’ for the classification of crime. As per this rule, among many offences registered in a single FIR case, only the most heinous crime (maximum punishment) will be considered as a counting unit. Hence, some IPC crimes including under Sec 153 may be underreported.
Four-fold increase in the number of cases registered under Section 153A
In recent years, there is a considerable increase in the number of cases registered under Section 153A & 153AA i.e., ‘Promoting Enmity between groups’. The NCRB’s CII report provides data under this head since 2014. In that year, 336 cases were registered across the country under this section which increased to 378 in 2015. The number of cases increased consistently over the years except for 2019.
In 2017, there was a nearly two-fold increase in the number of cases registered under Section 153A with 934 cases compared to 447 in 2016.  In 2019, the number of cases registered was 1058, slightly less than in 2018 when 1076 cases were registered.
The greatest number of cases in a year were registered in 2020 with 1804 cases, an increase of 70% compared to 2019.  During the five-year period of 2015-2020, there is a more than four-fold increase in the number of cases registered under this section.
Tamil Nadu & Uttar Pradesh reported the most cases under Section 153A in 2020
The greatest number of cases under Section 153A & 153AA were registered in Tamil Nadu with 303 cases, followed by Uttar Pradesh at 243 in the year 2020. Both these states reported a sharp increase in the number of cases registered during 2020, compared to the year 2019 contributing to an overall increase in the number of cases during 2020.
Similarly, Telangana has also registered a sizeable increase in the number of cases during 2020.
Andhra Pradesh also registered an increase in the number of cases, but only slightly. Most of the other States with a higher number of cases under Section 153A during 2020, also reported a considerable increase in the number of cases compared to 2019.  Kerala is an exception where the number of cases in 2020 reduced compared to 2019.
In the next story, we take a detailed look at disposal of cases registered under Section 153A by the police and the courts.

source: news-factly

created: December 31, 2021

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
Data: More Than Rs. 10,800 Crores Paid by DICGC Towards Claims by Banks as of March 2022 - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 5, 2023
The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) is a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) established to safeguard the interests of depositors in the event of a bank failure. DICGC provides coverage for deposits in various types of banks, including commercial banks, foreign bank branches, local area banks, regional rural banks, and co-operative banks. As of 31 March 2022, the cumulative amount of claims settled by DICGC stood at Rs. 10,820 crores.
The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) is a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) established to safeguard the interests of depositors in the event of a bank failure. It was created in July 1978 by merging two earlier entities: the Depositors Insurance Corporation (DIC), and the Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (CGCI). The DICGC operates under the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act of 1961, which outlines its mandate to insure deposits and guarantee credit facilities.
DICGC provides coverage for deposits in various types of banks, including commercial banks, foreign bank branches, local area banks, regional rural banks, and co-operative banks. It encompasses deposits such as savings, fixed, recurring, and current accounts, excluding only those of foreign governments, central/state governments, and interbank deposits.
Insurance for deposit was increased to Rs. 5 lakhs in 2020
Each depositor is insured up to Rs. 5 lakh, which includes both the principal and interest amounts. This coverage limit was increased from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 5 lakh on 4 February 2020, as per RBI’s notification. The scheme is mandatory for all banks and cannot be opted out of, ensuring that depositors have a safety net in case of financial instability within the banking sector. While the deposit insurance premium is primarily paid by the insured bank, the benefits of deposit insurance accrue to depositors, providing them with a level of protection and security for their savings in the event of a bank failure.
DICGC pays the insured bank when it goes into liquidation so that the depositor’s money is secure
The deposit insurance premium is borne entirely by the insured bank. If a bank goes into liquidation, DICGC is liable to pay to the liquidator the claim amount of each depositor up to Rs. 5 lakhs within two months from the date of receipt of the claim list from the liquidator. The liquidator has to disburse the claim amount to each insured depositor corresponding to their claim amount.
Suppose, a bank is reconstructed or amalgamated/merged with another bank, the DICGC pays the bank concerned, the difference between the full amount of deposit or the limit of insurance cover in force at the time, whichever is less, and the amount received by him under the reconstruction/amalgamation scheme within two months from the date of receipt of claim list from the transferee bank or the authority of the Insured Bank. A detailed explainer of the scheme by Factly can be read here.
In this story, we look at the trends in the insurance claims settled and repayments received by all Liquidated, Amalgamated, and Reconstructed Banks under the DICGC Scheme. The data for this story has been compiled from the reports of the DGCIC and is available on Dataful.
Claims worth Rs. 10,820 crores have been settled as of 2022
As of 31 March 2022, the cumulative amount of claims settled stood at Rs. 10,820 crores compared to Rs. 5,762.7 crores as of 31 March 2021. This amount includes all types of repayments made to all Liquidated, Amalgamated, and Reconstructed Banks under the DICGC scheme. While the amount of claims settled increased steadily between 1999 and 2013, the amount was comparatively lower between 2015 and 2019. In 2021-22 alone, DGCIC settled claims amounting to Rs. 5,057.4 crores, close to the cumulative amount settled under the scheme since inception and as of 2018. In 2021-22, the Government passed the DICGC (Amendment) Act, 2021 under which account holders will get up to Rs. 5 lakhs within 90 days of the RBI imposing a moratorium on their banks from DICGC.
There are different types of repayment made to the respective bank. These are as follows:
The data on the type of repayment is available for different types of banks- Commercial Banks and Co-operative Banks. Overall, the data shows that 97% of all the repayments for settlement of claims were made to co-operative banks as of 31 March 2022.
99% of the repayment to commercial banks was done in parts
For commercial banks, as of 31 March 2022, the total repayments stood at Rs. 295.8 crores. Out of this, Rs. 39.1 crores was full repayment, which amounted to about 13% of the total repayment. Nearly 60% of the total repayment i.e., Rs.175.01 crores was done in parts. About Rs. 81.73 crores were done partly with the balance written off.
In the case of co-operative banks, like commercial banks, a major share of repayment was done in parts. Out of the Rs.10,524 crores repaid, Rs.10,518 crores was done in parts, about 99%. The amount repaid fully was only Rs. 4.78 crores. Only about Rs. 78.3 lakhs was made in parts with the balance written off.
Significant portion of the payment in parts has been lying as balance
Of the repayments done in parts, the balance has reduced over the years. However, there is still a substantial amount lying as balance. As of 31 March 2022, for commercial banks, out of the total Rs. 175 crores repaid in parts, nearly 44% of the amount is the cumulative balance to be repaid. The cumulative balance was as high as Rs. 213.3 crores in 2003.
Meanwhile, in the case of cooperative banks, out of the total Rs. 10,512 crores done in part repayments, about Rs. 6,834 crores was the balance as of 31 March 2022. That is, only about 35% of the repayment was received and the remaining 65% stood as balance. Prior to 2022, the balance was on a decline and was only 38% of the repayment.
For commercial banks, 77% of the repayments had the balance written off
Of the claims settled, the repayments made to the banks in parts with the remaining amount written off was more in the case of commercial banks. As of 31 March 2022, Rs.78.3 lakhs was settled in this mode of repayment for cooperative banks. About 70% of the amount was written off and repayment made was Rs. 23.33 lakhs in this mode. In the case of commercial banks, Rs. 8,172.9 lakhs was the total amount of repayment made in this mode, out of which nearly 77%, about Rs. 6,258 lakhs was written off.
The DICGC plays a crucial role in safeguarding depositors’ interests in India, and the data discussed above reflects the trends in cumulative insurance claims settled and repayments received. It shows that a significant portion of repayments being made are in parts and some amount being written off.

created: October 5, 2023


text:
More than Rs. 1200 crores worth Electoral Bonds purchased in January 2022, third-highest since inception
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 10, 2022
Access here Comprehensive Data on Electoral Bonds (as of February 2024)
The 19th phase of sale under the ‘Electoral Bond scheme 2018’ took place during the first 10 days of January 2022, in light of the upcoming assembly general elections in five states. This phase saw sales of EBs worth more than Rs. 1200 crores, the third highest value of the sale in a single-phase since the introduction of the scheme. Here is a low-down on the numbers from the 19th phase of EBs sale.
The Government of India announced the 19 Phase of ‘Electoral Bond Scheme 2018’ on 30 December 2021. The State Bank of India (SBI) was authorized to sell the Electoral Bonds under the 19 Phase during the period, 01 January 2022, and 10 January 2022. The previous 18 phase of sale was during October 2021.
With upcoming general elections for State Assemblies in 5 states during February & March 2022 and other assembly & parliament by-elections coupled with local body elections during this period, the sale of the 19 Phase of Electoral Bonds assumes importance.
In the story, we look at the data relating to the purchase & redemption of electoral bonds (EBs) during the 19 Phase of the Electoral Bond Scheme. Details of the Electoral Bonds across the various phases since the launch of the scheme can be viewed on Factly’s comprehensive Dashboard on this issue – Electoral Bonds – The Numbers.
The third greatest value of Electoral Bonds purchased during the 19th Phase
A total of 2068 EBs worth Rs.1.21 thousand crores were sold by SBI during the 19 Phase of the scheme. This is the greatest value of purchase since April 2019 (during the 9 Phase) when 4681 EBs worth Rs. 2.25 thousand crores were purchased. The only other phase that had a higher value of the sale of bonds than the 19th Phase was the 8th Phase. Both the 8th & 9th phases of the sale were before the 2019 General elections to Lok Sabha & Assembly elections in 4 states.
The greatest value of EBs sold between May 2019 & the recent 19 phase was during April 2021, which coincided in Assembly general elections in 5 states. The sale value during the 19 phase is much higher than during April 2021. As five states including the largest state of Uttar Pradesh go to the polls, the amount of sales in the 19 phase is hardly surprising.
56% of the EBs purchased during the 19th Phase were of 1 Crore Denomination
Out of the 2068 EBs purchased during the 19 Phase, 1156 i.e., 56% of all the EBs purchased, were of Rs. 1 Crore denomination. Around 26% were of Rs. 10 lakh denomination and 17.6% were of Rs. 1 Lakh denomination. Only 1 EB of Rs. 1 thousand Denomination and 10 EBs of Rs. 10 thousand denomination were purchased.
The lower demand for EBs of the lower denomination is in line with the trend since the inception of the scheme. In all the 19 phases, only 56 bonds of Rs. 1 thousand denominations and 132 bonds of Rs. 10 thousand denominations were purchased. We had earlier written about the lower demand for the low valued EBs and how most of these low-value bonds that are printed have remained unsold. The proportion of the purchases during the 19th phase in terms of the denomination is consistent with the general trend in most other phases where the higher value of EBs was purchased in higher denominations with Rs. 1 Crore EBs leading the pack followed by Rs.10 lakhs & Rs. 1 Lakh respectively.
Greatest Value of Bonds purchased in Mumbai followed by Chennai
During the 19 Phase, EBs were purchased in 12 different cities. The greatest in terms of number and value was in Mumbai.
By Value, 65% of the EBs were redeemed was in New Delhi
The EBs are valid for a period of 15 days from the date of purchase. During the 19 phase, Rs. 40 lakh worth of EBs were not redeemed. EBs worth Rs. 1212.86 crores were redeemed in 9 cities. The major share of the redeemed EBs was in New Delhi.
Lack of timely information about the beneficiaries of Electoral Bonds
In an earlier story, we had highlighted the long wait period before a common citizen is able to know about the beneficiaries of the EBs. The earliest that one can know about the beneficiaries of the 19 Phase of electoral bonds is only during the latter part of this year when the political parties are required to submit their Annual Audit reports.
But considering the existing delay by political parties in the submission of their audit reports, this can further get delayed.  As on date, only 2 of the 7 recognized National parties have submitted the Annual Audit report for the previous year i.e., 2020-21.
While not exact, inference can be drawn regarding the potential beneficiaries by looking at the earlier trends and the place of purchase & redemption. The highest value of bonds being redeemed in New Delhi could mean that the large national parties like the BJP & the Congress, could be major beneficiaries. The other national parties like TMC, BSP could also be potential beneficiaries since they have an account in New Delhi.
The historical data indicates that EBs redeemed in a city other than New Delhi could be by a key regional/state party in that particular state. While only Rs. 3.21 crores are redeemed in Lucknow, there is a high possibility that this could be by the Samajwadi Party which is a key state party in Uttar Pradesh.
The same can be said about Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), another regional party being among the main contenders in Punjab & Goa, with a base primarily in Delhi. This could also explain the reason for lower redemption in Chandigarh where only Rs. 50 lakhs worth EBs were redeemed. Though Chandigarh is the capital of Punjab, 3 of the 4 major political parties contesting the Punjab elections are the Congress, AAP & BJP.
While there are no assembly elections in Tamil Nadu & West Bengal, the higher number of bonds purchased & redeemed in Chennai & Kolkata could be due to local body elections in these states. TMC contesting elections in Goa and other places could also be a reason. Earlier, a high value of EBs was redeemed in Hyderabad when the local corporation elections were held.
However, all these are conjectures based on past trends. The actual details of beneficiaries along with the volumes will only be known after the submission of Audit reports by the political parties for the year 2021-22.

created: February 10, 2022


text:
Rs. 1750 crores of MPLADS funds unutilized as of December 2020
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 22, 2021
In view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the government had decided to halt the release of MPLADS funds for two years with these funds diverted for COVID-19 relief efforts. However, data provided by the government indicates that more than Rs. 1750 crores MPLADS funds lie unutilized with district authorities as of December 2020. Here is a detailed review.
The Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) was introduced to provide funds to individual MPs to develop their own constituency based on local needs and requirements. Over the years, there are have been apprehensions regarding the underutilization of the allocated funds under this scheme. The Comptroller & Auditor General’s (CAG) report in 2011, makes important observations on the underutilization and discrepancies in the utilization of MP LADS funds.
In an earlier story, we have analyzed the available data about MPLADS and observed the trends in utilization of the funds. This data further corroborates the earlier observations of CAG and the claims by different sections regarding the under-utilization of the funds.
Recently, on 17 March 2021, responding to a question in Lok Sabha, the government provided the details of MPLADS funds available across the various Nodal districts (418 for Lok Sabha MPs & 176 for Rajya Sabha MPs).
A Lok Sabha MP can choose a Nodal District within the constituency while a Rajya Sabha member has the option to choose a district from the State he/she is nominated from.  As per the guidelines, the funds left unspent by an MP at the end of term are given to the successor MPs i.e the funds do not lapse and are carried forward.
Nodal Districts from 5 states account for 50% of the available funds for Lok Sabha MPs
As per the information provided in the Lok Sabha, as of November-December’2020, a total of Rs. 1.32 thousand crores of MPLADS funds of Lok Sabha MPs are available across 418 Nodal Districts. These Districts are spread across the 31 States/UTs in the country.
Among the funds available, the highest is among the districts belonging to Uttar Pradesh with Rs. 182.64 crores. It is understandable as the state has the most number of Lok Sabha MPs and 69 nodal districts are covered in the state.
It is followed by Karnataka with Rs.142.75 crores across the 25 nodal districts in the state. It is followed by Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh respectively. Each of these states has more than Rs.100 crores of available funds across the nodal districts. The total amount of funds currently available for the nodal districts in these 5 states makes up for half of the total MPLAD funds available across all the districts of the country for Lok Sabha MPs.
Karnataka, U.P & West Bengal have the highest available MPLADS funds of Rajya Sabha MPs
A total of 176 Nodal districts have been identified by Rajya Sabha MPs for developmental works using MPLADS funds. As per the information shared by the government in the Lok Sabha, a total of Rs. 422.66 crores MPLADS funds are available as of November-December 2020.
The highest among these are in the state of Uttar Pradesh with 28 districts, followed by Bihar with 16 districts. However, the highest MPLADS funds available is with the districts in Karnataka with Rs. 47.15 crores across 4 districts. It is largely due to the Rs. 43.85 crores of Rajya Sabha MPLADS funds are available with Bengaluru Urban nodal district. Overall, the funds available in the districts of Karnataka are around 11% of the total Rajya Sabha MPLADS funds.
Similarly, West Bengal has the third-highest available funds for Rajya Sabha MPs despite only three districts being identified as Nodal Districts for Rajya Sabha MPLADS. This is largely due to Rs. 40.48 crores available with Kolkata District. Out of the 27 states, 14 states have more than Rs. 10 crores each available.
11 Nodal districts each have more than Rs.10 crores available from Lok Sabha MPLADS
Two of the 418 nodal districts account for 6.5% of the total unutilized available funds under Lok Sabha MPLADS. Chamrajnagar District in Karnataka has Rs. 47.63 crores available as of November-December’2020. It is followed by Balarampur in Uttar Pradesh which has Rs. 38.39 crores of unutilized Lok Sabha MPLADS funds.
Apart from these two districts, another 9 districts have available funds between Rs. 10 crores & Rs. 30 crores. Andhra Pradesh has 4 out of these 11 districts with available funds over Rs. 10 crores each.
A further 64 districts have available funds ranging between Rs. 5 crores and Rs. 10 crores. Meanwhile, a majority of the Nodal districts i.e  261 districts have available funds ranging between Rs. 1 crore – Rs. 5 crores.  Two districts – Lakshadweep and Ashok Nagar (Madhya Pradesh) have no funds that are currently available.
Around 100 Nodal districts each have more than Rs. 1 crore Rajya Sabha MPLADS Funds
As highlighted earlier in this story, the nodal districts of Bengaluru Urban and Kolkata have funds available in excess of Rs. 40 crores each, thereby contributing towards higher availability of Rajya Sabha MPLADS funds in respective states.
As per the latest information provided in the Lok Sabha, Bengaluru Urban district has Rs. 43.85 crores available from Rajya Sabha MPLADS funds. Kolkata is the only other nodal district with more than Rs.40 crores available.  Another 5 districts have funds available between Rs. 10 crores & Rs. 30 crores each. Among the 176 districts that have Rajya Sabha MPLADS funds available, the major portion of them i.e 83 districts have unutilized funds in the range of Rs.1 crore – Rs. 5 crores each.
In view of hold on MPLADS funds, opportunity to utilize the available funds
Last year, the Union Government took a decision to hold the funding for MPLADS for a period of two years (financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22). As per the government, this decision was taken in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The funds which are ear-marked for MPLADS would be at the disposal of the Ministry of Finance, to be utilized towards COVID-19 relief efforts.
As per this, MPs would not be able to get new funds for two years and also would not be able to get unreleased installments of previous years pending as of 31 March 2020.  However, any of the works that are already sanctioned can be completed using the funds which are available with the district level nodal authorities. The MPs also have an option of changing the priority of the sanctioned works.
As noted earlier, the total value of Lok Sabha MPLADS funds available is Rs. 1.32 thousand crores and those with Rajya Sabha MPLADS are to the tune of Rs. 422.63 crores. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has affected many sectors, MPs could utilize available funds could be for relief & other efforts as permissible.
Furthermore, since no new funds would be allocated for two years, this time period could be utilized to complete all pending works and utilize the available amount. This could clear the backlog and pave the way for the formulation of a more robust and accountable mechanism of the utilization of MPLADS funds. The government has also initiated a 3rd party evaluation of the MPLADS, the report of which would be available in a few months.
Featured Image: Unutilized MPLADS funds


text:
Data: More than Rs. 2,800 Crores in Unclaimed Amounts transferred to SCWF by Insurance Companies as of March 2023
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 11, 2023
As per the directions issued by IRDAI, all insurers with unclaimed amounts of policyholders for a period of more than 10 years as on 30 September, every year have to transfer such unclaimed amount to the Senior Citizens Welfare Fund (SCWF) on or before 01 March of the financial year. Here is what the data indicates.
An insurance policy provides a safety net and ensures financial security against any unforeseen events in a person’s life. The premise that any type of insurance policy, Life or Non-life, works upon is that a premium is paid to the insurer regularly with an assurance that a lump sum amount with benefits if any, are paid upon maturity or when needed as stipulated in the policy.
However, in many instances, the amount remains unclaimed for various reasons. These could include – the death of a policyholder without having a nominee in place, not having the necessary documents to make a claim, failure to complete the required premium payments, lack of communication in case of address or bank change, nominees not aware of the policy in case of death of deceased, etc.
Unclaimed amount refers to the amount of money that remains unpaid to the policyholders or beneficiaries in the form of survival claims, premium funds, maturity claims, death claims, etc.
Insurance companies have processes in place to reach out to the policyholder or nominees alerting them on the unclaimed amount and advising them to make a claim. Despite the efforts from Insurance companies, a certain amount remains unclaimed. So, what happens to this unclaimed amount?
Unclaimed amount for a period more than 10 years to be transferred to Senior Citizens Welfare Fund
The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) laid down the process to be followed by the insurers in case of unclaimed policy amount.  Over the years, the IRDAI has issued various directions regarding the unclaimed amounts to be paid to the policyholders. A consolidated Master circular was issued by IRDAI in July 2017.
As per the directions issued in this circular, all insurers with unclaimed amounts of policyholders for a period of more than 10 years as on 30 September, have to transfer such unclaimed amount to the Senior Citizens Welfare Fund (SCWF) on or before 01 March of the financial year.
The IRDAI also laid down the directions for the accounting procedures to be followed in transferring the unclaimed amount to the designated account of the Government of India. The Government of India set up the Senior Citizens Welfare Fund (SCWF) through the provisions of the Finance Act, 2015, for promoting the welfare of Senior citizens. Various institutions are enlisted to transfer unclaimed amounts, to be utilized for various schemes. Insurance companies are also listed among these institutions whose unclaimed insurance policy amounts are required to be transferred to SCWF. The process to be followed by Insurance companies is in accordance with SCWF rules.
As already indicated above, in the case of Insurance Companies, all the unclaimed amounts for more than 10 years are required to be transferred to SCWF. The insurance companies are required to categorize the unclaimed policy amount based on tenure and transfer all the amount that is unclaimed for more than 10 years. The latest Master circular in this regard was released by the Government in November 2020. The emphasis of the latest circular is on monitoring, reporting, and certification of unclaimed amounts.
But how much amount is transferred by Insurance companies to SCWF? Factly filed an RTI application seeking this information from the IRDAI. The dataset based on the response to this RTI can be found on Dataful.
More than 2.85 thousand crores of Unclaimed Insurance amount transferred to SCWF as of March 2023
As per the RTI response, a total of Rs. 81.63 crores were transferred to SCWF by Insurance companies as on 01 March 2018. This is the first time that the unclaimed amounts were transferred to SCWF after the implementation of the new regulation. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 48.95 crores are from Life Insurers while another Rs. 32.68 crores from Non-Life Insurers.
During 2019-20, the total value of insurance amount transferred increased nearly four-fold to Rs. 398.95 crores. This increase is due to the increase in the amount transferred by Life Insurers.
However, in the ensuing year, the amount transferred by Life Insurers fell to around Rs. 188 crores. This is reflected in the overall amount transferred by the Insurance companies to SCWF.
In the following years, there is a steady increase, mainly contributed by the increase in the amount transferred by Life Insurers. During 2022-23, the amount transferred in the year increased by 80% compared to 2021-22. It ought to be noted that the values for the respective fiscal years are as on 01 March of the respective fiscal year, as per the guidelines which require the transfer to happen by the first of March of every year.
LIC accounts for 83 % of the total amount transferred to SCWF by Life Insurers
Out of the total unclaimed amount transferred to SCWF by Insurance companies, the highest proportion is by Life Insurers. Out of the total Rs. 2.85 thousand crores of unclaimed insurance amount transferred to SCWF; Life Insurers transferred Rs. 2.54 thousand crores i.e., 89% of the total. A major share of this is contributed by the largest life insurer i.e., the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC).
Between 2017-18 and 2022-23, the total amount transferred by LIC to SCWF was Rs. 2.1 thousand crores. This makes up around 83% of the total amount transferred by Life Insurers. This also accounts for around 74% i.e., nearly 3/4 of the total unclaimed amounts transferred by insurance companies to SCWF.
Among the other Life insurers, ICICI Prudential Life transferred the second greatest unclaimed amount of Rs. 108.7 crores between 2017-18 and 2022-23. A majority of this i.e., Rs. 73.4 crores are during the past two years i.e., 2021-23. Another noticeable trend is that there is an increase in the number of Insurers who have transferred unclaimed amounts to SCWF. In 2017-18 there were 12 Insurers, which increased to 22 in 2022-23.
ICICI Lombard and New India Insurance make up more than 57% of amount transferred by non-life insurers
Compared to Life Insurers, the share of various non-life insurers of the total amount transferred to SCWF is more evenly distributed. However, two non-life insurers account for a major share of the amount transferred to SCWF.
Between 2017-18 and 2022-23, ICICI Lombard General transferred Rs. 97.5 crores out of the total Rs. 315.5 crores transferred by non-life insurers to SCWF i.e., 31% of the total. Except for 2022-23, ICICI Lombard was the highest contributor year on year. The total contribution of New India Insurance is Rs. 84.09 crores during this period. A major share of which was in 2022-23 with Rs. 38.3 crores transferred during the year.
While transferring unclaimed insurance amount to SCWF has a purpose-full utilization, it is also required that the Insurers adopt more proactive strategies to ensure that the unclaimed amount reaches the right beneficiaries instead of the remaining unclaimed for more than 10 years.


text:
Data: Most Bills Were Passed by The Lok Sabha During The 5th Term (1971 To 1977)
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
December 12, 2022
Data from the ‘Statistical Handbook 2021’ released by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs indicates that the number of bills passed by the Lok Sabha and both the houses has reduced in the recent times. The number of bills that lapse at dissolution has also increased.
The business conducted in the Parliament facilitates various functions including – making & amending laws, financial control, assessment of the working of government, and discussion on pressing issues of public importance. These are facilitated through the introduction, discussion & passing of bills, official motions and discussions, short-notice questions, short-duration discussions, etc.
In the earlier story, we highlighted that there is a progressive decline in the number of days the Lok Sabha convenes. But what about the business being carried out? In this story, we look at the trends in the various business carried out in parliament, more specifically the Lok Sabha.
As in the earlier story, the data is sourced from the ‘Statistical Handbook 2021’, released by the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs.
Highest Number of Bills passed during the term of 5th Lok Sabha
The Fifth Lok Sabha had an extended term, with a total of 5.5 years including the period during the emergency. During the period, there were a total of 18 sessions, in which a total of 487 bills were passed. This is the highest number of bills passed by Lok Sabha in a single term.  Among others, the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Bill was introduced and passed during this term of Lok Sabha.
The Eighth term of Lok Sabha passed the next highest number of bills with 355 bills. It is followed by the Seventh and the First Lok Sabha terms. Meanwhile, the least number of bills were passed during the Twelfth term of Lok Sabha. The term was the shortest term with only 13 months, during which 60 bills were passed in the 4 sessions that Lok Sabha convened.
Among the fully completed terms of Lok Sabha, the least number of bills were passed during the Fifteenth Lok Sabha (2009-2014), with the next Lok Sabha term doing slightly better at 205 bills.
The Statistical Handbook – 2021, also provides data on the number of bills that were passed in both houses. There exist some variances with the number of bills passed in both houses lesser than that of the bills passed in only Lok Sabha. The highest difference was during the 16 Lok Sabha, where 180 bills were passed in both houses compared to 205 bills passed only in Lok Sabha. This could be because the ruling government did not have an absolute majority in the Rajya Sabha.
5th Lok Sabha also passed the highest average number of bills per session
The tenure of the Lok Sabha has a direct bearing on the total number of bills passed, with the Lok Sabha terms completing full 5-years being able to convene longer and pass a greater number of bills.  But the average number of bills passed per session and the average number of bills passed per sitting of Lok Sabha can provide a better perspective of the productivity of the respective Lok Sabha.
In terms of the average number of bills passed per session, the 5th Lok Sabha has passed on average of 27 bills per session. The 1,7 & 8 sessions were the next most productive sessions with an average of 22 bills passed per session.  The 9 Lok Sabha passed a total of 63 bills during its 1.5 years tenure. On average, it passed 8 bills per session.
Among the terms which completed their full tenure, the least productive has been the immediate two earlier terms i.e., the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Lok Sabha. The number of bills passed per session is 13 and 12 respectively. Comparatively, the Current Lok Sabha is more productive with an average of 19 bills per session.
The average number of bills passed per every sitting of Lok Sabha also provides insights into the productivity of the particular Lok Sabha terms. In this aspect, the 13 Lok Sabha, which followed two terms of uncertainty and incomplete terms, was able to pass on average 0.85 bills per every sitting. This term passed 302 bills across the 356 sittings of the Lok Sabha. The other more productive Lok Sabha terms in this aspect are the Fifth and the Fourteenth Lok Sabha sessions.  The current Lok Sabha has the highest so far, with 0.91 bills passed per session.
It has to be noted that the data on the actual time spent on debates and discussions would provide a more holistic understanding of the productivity of the parliament session.
Highest Number of Bills passed in both houses during 3rd Session of Fifth Lok Sabha
The 5th Lok Sabha passing the highest number of bills is also reflected in four of the top-10 sessions with the highest number of bills passed were during the 5th Lok Sabha. The session-wise bills passed information provided in Statistical Handbook 2021, includes those bills passed in both houses of Parliament.
The highest number of bills passed was during the 3rd session of the Fifth Lok Sabha, wherein 47 bills were passed.  45 bills were passed during the 6th Session of Tenth Lok Sabha.  In the 5th Lok Sabha, apart from the 3rd session, three other sessions i.e., the 4, 15 & 16 sessions are among the top-10 sessions with the highest number of bills passed.
7 sessions were convened without any bills being passed. These sessions were either the first sessions of the respective Lok Sabha or were specifically convened for No-confidence motions.
15th Lok Sabha has the Highest number of bills lapsed at the dissolution
The dissolution of Lok Sabha results in the lapse of all the business i.e., bills, motions, resolutions, etc. that are pending. All the bills that are pending in the Lok Sabha, and those bills passed by the Lok Sabha but pending in the Rajya Sabha lapse at the dissolution of Lok Sabha.
The exceptions include – bills pending in Rajya Sabha but not passed by Lok Sabha, bills passed by both houses but pending assent of the president, bills passed by both houses but returned by the president for reconsideration of the houses, bills not passed by the two houses due to disagreement and president has notified for a joint sitting.
In the Fifteenth Lok Sabha, 68 bills lapsed at the dissolution, which is the highest. A higher number of bills lapsed in the recent Lok Sabha terms, compared to earlier, possibly highlighting the changing nature of political consensus, and majorities of ruling parties.  The least number of bills lapsed during the first two terms of the Lok Sabha.

created: December 12, 2022


text:
Data: Most Cybercrimes Reported from Karnataka Under IT Act, Are Related to Identity Theft and Impersonation
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 16, 2023
NCRB’s CII reports indicate that most reported cybercrimes under the IT act between 2002 & 2021 were from Karnataka while in Maharashtra & Telangana, most cybercrimes were reported under IPC. Data indicates that Karnataka accounts for nearly 3/4th of the cybercrimes reported under Identity Theft.
In the previous story on Cyber Crimes, we analysed the trends in Cyber Crimes registered under various crimes heads of IPC, IT Act & SLL. In the first story of the series, we reviewed the trends in overall cybercrimes across the states. In this third story of the series, we analyse the trends of major cybercrimes across the States over the years.
The data for this analysis is taken from the collection of Datasets on Cyber Crimes available on Dataful, which is compiled from the National Crimes Record Bureau’s (NCRB) annual Crime in India (CII) reports.
Karnataka reported the highest number of Crimes & Crime rate for Crimes under IT Act
In the first story of the series, we highlighted that Karnataka has the second-highest number of cybercrimes reported between 2002 and 2021 and has the highest rate of cybercrimes. This is mostly due to the crimes reported under the IT Act.  Data indicates distinct trends in the cybercrimes reported in Karnataka under the IPC & IT Act. While the number relating to IT Act reflects the overall cybercrimes reported in Karnataka, the number of cybercrimes reported in Karnataka under IPC is lower.
Karnataka accounts for around 30% of the cybercrimes reported under the IT Act between 2002 and 2021. As highlighted earlier, the data is not available for 2014 & 2015 in NCRB’s CII reports. During this period, around 42.5 thousand cybercrimes were reported under the IT Act in Karnataka. Meanwhile, Uttar Pradesh accounts for around 28% of the cybercrimes reported under the IT Act. Together, these two states make up 58% of the cybercrimes reported under the IT Act. However, there is a wide variance in the rate of crimes between the two states. Even in the crime rate for crimes under the IT Act, Karnataka tops with more than 63 crimes per one lakh population. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, it is only about 17 crimes per one lakh population under the IT Act.
After Karnataka, Assam has the highest crime rate under IT Act with around 35 crimes per one lakh population during 2002 and 2021. It also ranks next to Karnataka & UP in terms of the total number of cybercrimes reported under the IT Act.
On the other hand, only around 181 cybercrimes were reported in Karnataka under IPC-related crime heads.  Maharashtra reported the highest number of cybercrimes under IPC, followed by Telangana. These two states together account for around 46% of the cybercrimes reported under IPC. However, in terms of crime rate, Telangana has the highest with around 45 crimes per one lakh population. This is around 2.5 times the rate in Maharashtra, which has the next highest crime rate for cybercrimes reported under IPC.
Here is a quick look at the state-wise trends for a few of the crime heads that have the highest number of cybercrimes reported.
Most IPC Cybercrimes reported as ‘fraud’ are from Telangana
In the earlier story, it is identified that cybercrimes that fall under ‘Fraud’ account for the highest number of cybercrimes under IPC. Telangana, which reported the second highest number of cybercrimes reported under IPC, leads the other states in terms of the total cybercrimes under ‘Fraud’. NCRB’s CII reports group these crimes under ‘Fraud’ under various heads across the years. Crimes falling under Section 420-Fraud, Criminal Breach of Trust, or Fraud, etc are considered.
Telangana accounts for around 28% of the total cybercrimes reported under ‘Fraud’ during the period 2002 and 2021. Nearly 63% of cybercrimes reported as ‘Fraud’ in Telangana were during 2021.
The crime rate provides a better comparison between the states by normalising the size of the population for the state, even in this aspect, Telangana has the highest crime rate relating to ‘Fraud’. Nearly 30 cybercrimes per one lakh population were reported as ‘Fraud’ in Telangana between 2002 and 2021.  This is more than 3 times the crime rate recorded in Odisha, which has the next highest crime rate for cybercrimes reported as ‘Fraud’.
In terms of the absolute number of crimes reported under ‘Fraud’ during this period, Maharashtra ranks next to Telangana, followed by Bihar, Odisha & Andhra Pradesh. Among the various cybercrimes reported under ‘Fraud’ in Telangana, a majority are related to online banking frauds and related to OTP. In the case of Maharashtra, Bihar & Odisha, frauds relating to ATMs account for a major share of the crimes under this head.
Telangana also has the highest Crime rate for ‘Cheating’ followed by Maharashtra
After ‘Fraud’, the highest number of cybercrimes under IPC are those related to ‘Cheating’. Maharashtra has the highest number of crimes reported under this head, followed by Telangana. These two states together make up more than 56% of the total IPC crimes reported as ‘Cheating’ across all the states & UTs for the period 2002 and 2021. Like in the case of ‘Fraud’, ‘Cheating’ also forms a part of Section 420 of IPC.
Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh & Assam are the other states which have reported a higher number of cybercrimes relating to ‘Cheating’. However, when the crime rate is considered, Telangana has the highest crime rate for ‘Cheating’ among the states. Around 8 crimes per one lakh population were related to ‘Cheating’ between 2002 and 2021 in Telangana. Maharashtra is next with around 6.8 crimes per lakh population. The crime rate relating to ‘Cheating’ cases is markedly higher in these two states.
‘Forgery’ has the highest number of crimes reported under a crime head that does not relate to IPC Section 420.  Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh account for the major share of cybercrimes reported under this head.  ‘Cyberstalking’ or ‘Online Bullying’ of Women and Children (IPC Section 354D) is another crime head under IPC, under which a comparably higher number of cybercrimes are reported. Maharashtra accounts for the highest share of cybercrimes reported under this crime head. Telangana is the next with increased reporting under this head in recent years.
Most Cybercrimes reported from Karnataka under IT Act, relating to Identity Theft and Impersonation
Section 66 i.e., Computer Related Offences are the major categories under which cybercrimes are reported under the IT Act.  As indicated above, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh have the highest share of crimes reported under this category. There are various crimes that fall under Section 66.  A higher proportion of the crimes reported under Section 66 are related to Identity Theft (Section 66c) and Cheating by Impersonation (66D).
Karnataka accounts for nearly 3/4 of the cybercrimes reported under Identity Theft.  As for cybercrimes reported under ‘Cheating by Impersonation’, the highest number of crimes are reported in Karnataka. The state accounts for around 42% of the cybercrimes reported under this head. Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and Telangana are the other states with a higher number of crimes reported under ‘Cheating by Impersonation’.
Section 67 of the IT Act i.e., Publication or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit acts, is another major category under the IT Act under which a higher number of cybercrimes are reported.
While Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of such reported crimes, Assam has the highest crime rate for this crime head.
In the next story of this series on cybercrimes, we look at the trends in the trial & disposal of cybercrimes with the Police and in Courts.

created: October 16, 2023


text:
Data: Most Migrants Transferred Their Ration Card Followed by Voter ID
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
April 4, 2023
One of the key areas covered in the recently released 78th round of National Sample Survey report is migration. Data on transfer of documents by migrants indicates that more than 60% of the migrants in both rural & urban areas transferred more than one document. Most migrants transferred their ration card followed by voter ID.
One of the key areas covered in the recently released 78th round of National Sample Survey report is migration. In the previous story, we looked at the migration figures at the national level and the reasons behind migration as mentioned in the survey. In this story, we discuss numbers surrounding the transfer of documents by migrants. Data for this story has been sourced from Dataful.
Legal identity documents are required for multiple reasons
Documents such as voter ID, Aadhar Card, PAN Card, etc. are necessary legal identity documents issued by the Government of India. These are used for numerous purposes ranging from obtaining a SIM Card for a mobile phone, for both domestic and international travel, opening a bank account and taking loans, for rental agreements, getting basic utilities like gas, electricity, and water connections, for employment-related benefits like PF, ESI among others. These are increasingly being used for transactions and obtaining benefits extended by the government. Not just that, these documents are interlinked too. For instance, Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act provides that every individual who has been allotted a Permanent Account Number (PAN) should mandatorily link their Aadhaar and PAN for seamless tax-related transactions.
Considering the significance of these documents, when a person shifts their place of residence, they tend to make the change of address in these documents as well. However, not everyone does it considering the long process and procedures to be followed, especially if the migration or shifting is temporary and if only one member of the family has shifted to seek better education or employment opportunities while the rest of the family continues to reside in the permanent residence. In most cases, it is those who wish to permanently settle down at a new place and avail services that transfer the documents to the new address. Moreover, those who wish to permanently settle down in a new place may need favourable conditions or reasons to do so, like improved income, better career prospects, marriage, etc. If the settlement is permanent, transferring documents may be done just once.
Document transfer-related information was collected in the survey
During the 78 round of the NSS, for the persons who had migrated, the information as to whether the documents of the household members were transferred in the present place of enumeration from the last usual place of residence, as on the date of survey, was recorded. The percentage distribution of persons who have transferred any document(s) from the last usual place of residence to the present place of residence, by the type of document(s) transferred has been captured in the report. The four main types of documents considered for analysis here are Aadhaar, Voter id card, Ration card, and Passport. ‘Combined’ or ‘Combination’ was recorded if more than one of these four documents have been transferred. Apart from these, documents such as driving licenses, electricity bills, telephone bills, gas connections, bank/post office passbooks, etc. have been categorized as ‘others’.
More than 60% of the migrants transferred 2 or more documents out of Aadhar card, Voter id, Ration card, and Passport
According to the NSS report, the percentage of persons with a current place of residence different from the last usual place of residence was 34.6% in urban areas and 26.8% in rural areas. Overall, the migration rate at the national level was 29.1%. In the report, migrants have been defined as those whose last usual place of residence is different from the present place of enumeration. The usual place of residence is the place (village/town) where the person stayed continuously for a period of 6 months or more or intends to stay for 6 months or more.
More than 60% of the migrated persons who had transferred at least one document in rural as well as urban areas had transferred more than one of the four main documents cited earlier. 27.9% had transferred only their ration cards in rural areas and 18.1% had transferred the same in urban areas. About 7.6% had transferred their Voter IDs alone. While 3% had transferred their Aadhaar in rural areas, about 5.6% did so, in urban areas. 1.3% and 2.8% had transferred other documents in rural and urban areas respectively. The share of migrated persons who transferred their Passports was negligible. This could be because of the strict procedures and its limited usage. While other identification documents like Ration, card Aadhaar, and Voter ID are used by the majority of the population, a passport is usually taken only by those who plan to go abroad. Meanwhile, a large share of people has transferred their ration cards which allows access to basic food supplies and kerosene from ration shops at subsidized prices.
Share of transfers of only Voter ID is relatively high in Bihar and Chhattisgarh while that of Aadhar was exceptionally high in Chandigarh
Among states, the percentage share of persons who transferred documents by type of document is discussed below:
Ration Card: The percentage share of persons who transferred Ration Cards widely ranges from 3-3.5% in Assam and Delhi to more than 50% in Lakshadweep and more than 40% in Himachal Pradesh and Haryana. Out of the migrants who transferred at least one document, at least one in three migrants transferred only the ration card in MP, West Bengal, Rajasthan, and Odisha.
Voter ID Card: In Assam, more than 53% had transferred only their voter ID in contrast to less than 1% in Tamil Nadu, HP, and Puducherry. Nagaland registered more than 40% while Manipur, Bihar and Chhattisgarh registered more than 20% each. It may be noted that across most states, ration cards were the most widely transferred individual documents while in Chhattisgarh and Bihar, the share of Voter IDs transferred was the highest.
Aadhar: Only in Chandigarh, more than two-thirds had transferred their Aadhaar alone whereas nearly one-fourth had transferred the same in Daman and Diu and Arunachal Pradesh. While Nagaland and Bihar had more than 14% reporting Aadhaar transfers, it was less than 10% in all other states/UTs. In Assam, West Bengal, and Rajasthan, the share of Aadhaar transfers was less than 1%.
Passport: With respect to passports, 4.5% in Chandigarh followed by 1% in Nagaland had transferred only their passports. Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Assam had also reported transfers, but the share was 0.1%-0.2%.
Combined: More than 90% in Mizoram had transferred more than one of the four documents mentioned above, while the same was more than 80% in Sikkim and Uttarakhand. While most states reported more than 50% of persons reporting changing multiple documents, the share was among the lowest in Chandigarh, Assam, Nagaland, Assam, Bihar, and Odisha which reported larger shares in individual document transfers.
In Arunachal Pradesh, more than 40% of migrated persons had transferred other documents whereas the share was less than 7% across all other states.
Other factors also influence document transfer
In Union Territories like Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry, where the share of individual documents like Aadhaar and Ration card transfers is high, the inter-state migration is relatively higher as seen in the previous story. Furthermore, it is also seen that in states of Bihar, Odisha, and Chandigarh, the share of persons whose income either decreased or remained the same even after migration is higher than that of those whose income increased following migration which could be why the document transfer percentage is low in these states for multiple documents as the migration could have been temporary. Factors like income change, type of migration, etc. influence the transfer of documents.
Featured Image: Migration figures


text:
States expected to breach Fiscal Deficit targets on account of COVID-19
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 14, 2020
Latest data of SDLs indicated that the borrowings by state governments increased by around 50% during the first four months of the current fiscal compared to the same period in 2019-20. This also means that most states are expected to breach the fiscal deficit targets set in the budget estimates for 2020-21.
In an earlier story, we had observed that the States have borrowed around 50% more through State Development Loans (SDLs) during the first four months of 2020-21 compared to the same period in the previous year. This period coincides with the spread of COVID-19 in India and the subsequent lockdown imposed across the country. The lockdown had a negative impact on the economy resulting in lower than expected tax revenues, forcing states to go for market borrowings for funding planned expenditure.
The State governments have over the recent years relied on SDLs to borrow money to compensate fiscal deficit.  An increase in the amount borrowed through the SDLs points to less than expected revenues through other sources.
While the overall data indicates an increase in SDL borrowings in the first four months of 2020-21, is the same trend observed across the states? Are there any states which have a different trend? In this story, we take a deeper look into the SDL borrowing trends of the big states, GSDP, fiscal deficit of the states etc.
Maharashtra, Karnataka & Tamil Nadu have the highest proportionate increase in SDL Borrowings
Karnataka has the highest proportionate increase in the borrowings through SDLs during the first four months of 2020-21 compared to the same period in 2019-20. So far, Karnataka has raised ₹ 13 thousand crores this year, compared to ₹ 3 thousand crores during the same period last year i.e. an increase of more than 4 times. During the same period in 2018-19, Karnataka did not borrow any amount through SDLs.
Tamil Nadu has raised the highest amount during the current year so far with ₹ 35 thousand crores, which is more than double of the amount raised during the same period in 2019-20. Even during the same period in 2019-20, SDL borrowing has doubled compared to 2018-19.
Maharashtra has recorded around 150% increase in their SDL borrowings during the first four months of the past two financial years. During this period in 2018-19, the borrowings were nearly ₹ 5 thousand crores, which increased to ₹ 12.5 thousand crores in 2019-20 and to ₹ 31.5 thousand in the current year 2020-21.
Other Major states which reported an increase in the SDL borrowings compared to same period last year include – Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana and West Bengal.
Meanwhile, Bihar, Gujarat and Punjab have borrowed lesser amounts when compared to the same period last year.
Bihar & Gujarat have raised fewer amount via SDL borrowings compared to last year
Bihar has borrowed ₹ 4 thousand crores in the first four months of 2020-21 compared to ₹ 4.6 thousand crores during the same period in 2019-20. It ought to be noted that in 2018-19, Bihar has not raised any amount through SDLs during this period.
Gujarat has also raised lesser amount compared to last year with around ₹ 10 thousand crores this fiscal as against ₹ 12 thousand crores last year. The amount raised during the first four months of 2019-20 was more than double of what was raised during the same time in 2018-19.
Similar trend is observed for Punjab, where in there is a decrease in the SDL borrowings compared to last year, which follows a two-fold increase compared to the borrowings in 2018-19.  Meanwhile, there was no change in the amount borrowed through SDLs by Assam & UP compared to 2019-20. For both the states, the amount borrowed during the first four months of the current fiscal is same as the amount borrowed during 2019-20. However, the amount borrowed in the first four months of 2019-20 was lesser than the amount borrowed during the same period in 2018-19.
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal & Rajasthan among the states with Highest Debt-GSDP Ratio
As per the recommendations of 14th Finance Commission, the States are advised to keep the debt to lower than 25% of GSDP. Although Maharashtra borrowed the highest amount via SDLs for 2020-21 so far, and also has a higher volume of debt compared to their states, its Debt-GSDP ratio is only around 16.2% (as per Budget estimates for 2020-21).
Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which have seen a spike in SDL borrowings during the first four months of 2020-21, have their ratio at 21.8% and 19.5% respectively as per 2020-21 estimates. The debt estimate of Karnataka for the current fiscal is higher compared to the revised estimate of the last fiscal which was at 18.2 %.
Punjab, which reported a decrease in SDL borrowings compared to last fiscal has the highest Debt-GSDP ratio among the bigger states with 38.5%. The cutback in SDL borrowings thus seems to be an effort to cut down on the already mounting debt.
Bihar & U.P. which are among the states with falling SDL borrowings during this period, are among the states with a higher Debt-GSDP ratio with 30.1% & 28.8% respectively as per budget estimates of 2020-21. Uttar Pradesh also has the highest outstanding debt in terms of volume.
Rajasthan, Kerala, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh have debt above 30% of their GDP and are also among the states which have higher increase in SDL borrowings in the current fiscal.
Both Punjab and Andhra Pradesh have significantly increased their Debt-GSDP ratio in the 2020-21 estimates compared to the revised estimate of the last fiscal.
Significant increase in the Fiscal Deficit of Andhra Pradesh as per 2020-21 budget estimates
One of the targets set as per FRBM Act 2003, is to limit ‘Fiscal Deficit’ to 3% of GDP. A review of the states’ budgets indicates that among the major states, only Andhra Pradesh has a Fiscal Deficit higher than this set target with the estimates for 2020-21 pegging the deficit at 4.78%. The Revised Estimate for last fiscal is 3.75%. As per budget estimates of 2020-21, the fiscal deficit of Bihar is at 3%. However, the revised estimate for 2019-20 is 9.5 %, as against the budget estimate for 2019-20 which pegged it at only 2.8%
Although Maharashtra & Tamil Nadu have borrowed more through SDLs, their Fiscal Deficit is better off with 2.7% & 2.8% respectively as per budget estimates for 2020-21. As observed earlier, these two states also perform better on Debt-GSDP ratio parameter.
Punjab, which has a significantly higher debt ratio, estimates its Fiscal Deficit for 2020-21 to be around 2.9%, same as that of previous fiscal’s revised estimate.
Gujarat with low  SDL borrowings so far and lesser Debt-GSDP ratio also has a lesser fiscal deficit  with only an estimate of 1.8% for 2020-21.
Fall in SOTR could increase the Fiscal Deficit of States and impact the debt position
As per the budget estimates of most of the states (with the exception of Andhra Pradesh), the fiscal deficit is pegged at around the target set by the FRBM Act. Except for Bihar, the revised estimates for fiscal deficit of the last fiscal are also within the targets. However, the fall in State revenues because of COVID-19, could play spoil sport in fiscal deficit estimates.
Early trends for 2020-21 indicate the states are resorting to increased borrowings through SDLs, which could further increase the Debt-GSDP ratio. The increase in borrowings for states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka & Maharashtra which are also among the major economies in the country indicates that the states are trying to compensate the loss of revenues with increased borrowings.
The slump in economy could further deteriorate the fiscal position of other states forcing them to go for increased borrowings, worsening their already precarious debt position.
Featured Image: Fiscal Deficit targets of States


text:
Data: Most Units Subscribed in June 2023 Under Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme Since Inception
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 14, 2023
SGBs are government securities denominated in grams of gold and issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on behalf of the Government of India. These bonds are substitutes for holding physical gold and can be redeemed on maturity. These were issued in 64 tranches since their inception in 2015. Here is a look at what the numbers indicate.
The most recent tranche of issues of ‘Sovereign Gold Bonds’ (SGBs) was opened for the period 19-23 June 2023. This is the 64 tranche issued since the inception of the scheme. This tranche is also the first for the year 2023-24. The issue price of the bond during this period was Rs. 5,926 per gram.
SGBs are government securities denominated in grams of gold and issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on behalf of the Government of India. These bonds are substitutes for holding physical gold and can be redeemed on maturity.
Our explainer on ‘Sovereign Gold Bonds’ can be read here. In this story, we look at the trends in the SGBs scheme since its inception. The data is obtained from the Dataset on SGBs available on Dataful, which is compiled from data provided by the Reserve Bank of India.
Highest number of tranches in 2017-18, with a decline in recent years
The first tranche of the SGBs was issued on 30 November 2015. This was the only series (Series -I) in that calendar year. In 2016, two more series (Series-I & Series-II) were issued, during February and March. Overall, 3 tranches were announced during 2015-16.
Since 2016-17, the ‘Series’ are numbered within the financial year. Hence in 2016-17, the scheme was announced in 4 tranches, and the units subscribed belonged to Series I, II, III & IV respectively.  In 2017-18, the units were issued in 14 different tranches. This also happens to be the highest number of tranches in a single financial year. After that, the most tranches were in 2020-21, with 12 tranches. There is a decline in the number of tranches at 10 and 4 respectively in the subsequent years.
More than 11 crores units subscribed under the SGBs scheme since introduction
Any resident of India defined under FEMA, 1999 is eligible to invest in this scheme. Eligible investors include individuals, Hindu Undivided Family (HUFs), trusts, universities, and charitable institutions. The bonds are issued in denominations of one gram, which is counted as a unit. The maximum limit for subscription is 4 kg for Individuals and HUFs and 20 kg for trusts and other similar entities.
In the first tranche issued in November 2015, more than 9.14 lakh units were subscribed. This increased to 28.7 lakh units in the next tranche. In 2016-17, the subscriptions per tranche were around the same number with the highest in the third tranche with 35.98 lakh units. Overall, a total of 113.88 lakh units were subscribed in 2016-17.
In the first three issues of 2017-18, the subscriptions were round about the same levels as in 2016-17. However, there was a sharp decline in the number of units subscribed in the rest of the tranches for the year.
The trend of low subscriptions continued even during 2018-19 and 2019-20.  Recovery was observed since the beginning of 2020-21. A new high was achieved in the fourth issue of 2020-21 with 41.3 lakh units. In the next tranche, 63.5 lakh units were subscribed, making it the highest. The total subscriptions for the year 2020-21 were 323.5 lakh units, which remains to be the highest number of subscriptions in a year. Following this, there have been a series of ups and downs in the subscriptions. The greatest number of subscriptions in a single tranche was the most recent one. In the recently concluded 64 tranche i.e., the first for 2023-24, a total of 77.7 lakh units were subscribed, the most for any tranche till date.
Around 13 lakh units were redeemed pre-maturely till now
The tenor of the bond is 8 years. The bonds bear an interest rate of 2.5% per annum on the amount of initial investment. This amount is credited semi-annually. The bonds matured after 8 years, and the redemption price is the average price of gold of 999 purity for the last three days from the date of repayment.
However, early encashment/redemption is allowed after the fifth year from the date of issue. The bond is also tradable on exchange if it is held in demat form. There is also a provision for transferring the bonds to any other eligible investor.  The first tranche of bonds was issued in November 2015. Hence, the bonds issued in this tranche will only mature by the end of 2023. This implies that as of date, none of the bonds subscribed are matured.  However, many investors have exercised the option of pre-mature redemption over the years.  Data indicates that, so far around 13 lakh units were redeemed pre-maturely.
The greatest redemption in terms of units was from Series-1 of 2016 i.e., the second tranche of the scheme. A total of 2.21 lakh units were redeemed prematurely from this tranche, which accounts for 7.7% of the units subscribed in this tranche. A similar proportion of units were redeemed from the immediately following tranche as well.
Overall, from the first three tranches i.e., in 2015-16, a total of 3.61 lakh units were redeemed. This is around 7.4% of the subscribed units in these tranches. This proportion was reduced in the ensuing tranches. The latest tranche eligible for redemption pre-maturely is the Series-1 of 2018-19.  A total of 2.12 crore units are yet to be redeemed from the 22 tranches that are eligible for a pre-mature redemption.  There is no data on when particular units were redeemed or the value of period-wise redemption.
The units from the first three tranches would be mature during 2023-24. As per the latest update, 45.4 lakh units would mature, if not redeemed prematurely in the next few months.
Latest issue price is more than double the issue price in the first tranche
The value of the gold bonds is the simple average of the closing price of gold of 999 purity, published by the India Bullion and Jewellers Association Limited, for the last 3 business days of the week preceding the subscription period.
In the first issue of the scheme, the issue price was Rs. 2,684 per unit i.e., per gram. The issue price breached Rs. 3 thousand mark in the first issue of 2016-17, when it was Rs. 3,119. After increasing to Rs.3,150 per unit, in the next issue, the issue price remained less than Rs. 3,000 until the end of 2017-18.
Since 2018-19, the issue price once again crossed Rs. 3 thousand per unit and continued to increase in the subsequent issues. In the eighth series of 2019-20 i.e., in January 2020, the issue price was more than Rs. 4 thousand. This further increased and in the 42nd issue i.e., in August 2020, the issue price was Rs. 5,334. The issue price fell in the subsequent issues, even falling below Rs. 5 thousand. However, for the last year, the issue price has once again started to increase. The issue price of the latest tranche i.e., in June 2023, is the highest at Rs. 5,926 per unit.
The increase in the value of gold, reflected in the more than doubling of the issue price since the first issue, indicates SGBs could be a gainful investment. The highest subscription in the latest tranche despite a high issue price means that the scheme is being looked at as a preferred investment option by many.
While there is an increase in the gold prices compared to the initial issue price, the pre-mature redemption remains only about 7.5%. However, with the initial tranche of subscriptions set to expire at the end of this year, and more units getting matured in the subsequent years, it remains to be seen if the same level of enthusiasm continues in the subsequent issue tranches.
Featured Image: Sovereign Gold Bonds Scheme


text:
Most works under MPLADS are recommended during last year of a Lok Sabha tenure
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 7, 2020
Among the many austerity measures taken by the government to battle COVID-19, suspension of the MPLADS for a period of two years is one. Review of the MPLADS data for the last few Lok Sabha tenures indicates that most of the works under MPLADS are recommended during the last year of a Lok Sabha tenure.
On 06 April 2020, the Union Cabinet took a decision to keep on hold the operation of MPLADS (Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme) for the next two years i.e. 2020-21 & 2020-21. This decision was taken in view of the COVID-19 situation in the country, where-in the funds earmarked for MPLADS, will be now at the disposal of Ministry of Finance and can be made available for COVID-19 related containment and relief efforts.
This decision would effectively result in the following.
The opinion is divided on this decision of the government. Members from the opposition parties have said that it is a unliteral decision by government and such centralization can be detrimental to parliamentary democracy. There is also an opinion that earlier track record of Central Government, the delays in devolution funds, could hamper targeted local level works which MPLADS used to take care off. Meanwhile, there is also an argument that suspension of MPLADS could be a step in the right direction.
However, what does the available data and information about MPLADS say about this scheme? We took a look at the numbers relating to the scheme and observations made about the implementation & workings of MPLADS.
86% of released funds unspent during the first year of 17th Lok Sabha
Each MP is entitled to ₹ 5 Crores per year as part of MPLADS. As against this entitlement of ₹ 5 crores, only ₹2.5 crores were released to the MPs (with exception of few MPs) during the first year of the constitution of 17 Lok Sabha i.e. 2019-20. This is because the annual entitlement of ₹ 5 crores is released, in two equal instalments of Rs 2.5 crore each, subject to certain conditions as listed in the guidelines of this scheme. This means that many of the MPs did not spend enough to become eligible for the release of the second instalment.
This released amount is a total of ₹ 1512.5 for 2019-20. Coupled with interest, the total amount available with District Authorities is ₹ 1,526.24 crores for 2019-20. Out of the released amount, the cumulative amount that was recommended by the MPs for various works amounted to ₹ 691.25 crores, of which the District Authorities have sanctioned ₹ 469.87 crores. A total of ₹ 207.54 crores were spent so far on various works, which is only around 14% of the total amount that is released to the MPs in 2019-20. Even in terms of the sanctioned amount, the utilization so far is less than half.
Nearly 2000 crores of unspent amount from the past three Lok Sabhas, with another 1600  crores unspent by Rajya Sabha members.
In the 14th Lok Sabha, Government of India has released a total of ₹ 14.02 thousand crores, which totalled to ₹14.47 thousand crores with interest added. Of the total ₹15.7 thousand crores worth of works recommended by the MPs; the respective district authorities have sanctioned ₹ 14.35 thousand crores for carrying out various works, of which ₹ 14.32 thousand crores were utilized.  ₹151.13 crores of available funds available to the MPs of 14 Lok Sabha remains unutilized.
In the 15th Lok Sabha, a total of ₹10.26 thousand crores was released to MPs under MPLADS, which accumulated to ₹ 10.9 thousand crores along with Interest. MPs of 15 Lok Sabha have recommended works worth ₹ 12.22 thousand crores, of which the District authorities have sanctioned works worth ₹ 10.47 thousand crores. A total of ₹ 10.43 crores were spent by the district authorities for various works. However, around ₹ 463 crores available for MPs of 15Lok Sabha remains unspent.
₹12.36 thousand crores were released to the MPs of 16th Lok Sabha under MPLADS by Government of India (GoI) which accumulated to ₹13.33 thousand crores along with interest. The MPs have recommended works worth ₹15.53 thousand crores, but only ₹ 13.47 thousand crores were sanctioned. A total of ₹ 1.38 thousand crores remain unspent with ₹11.96 thousand crores utilized by the district authorities for various works.
A total of ₹ 1.99 thousand crores i.e. 5.4% of the total amount released by GoI under MPLADS over the past three Lok Sabhas remain unspent, with a major portion of it belonging to the 16 Lok Sabha.
Nearly ₹ 1.66 thousand crores out of ₹ 15.93 thousand crores released to Rajya Sabha MPs remains unspent. Of this, ₹ 540 crores are unspent by the Sitting Rajya Sabha MPs and ₹ 1.12 thousand crores released to ex-Rajya Sabha MPs is unutilized.
Around 31% of the works recommended in 16th Lok Sabha remain unfinished
During the 16th Lok Sabha, around 3.72 lakh works were recommended by MPs of which nearly 2.57 lakh works were completed over the five years. Nearly 31% of the recommended works remain unfinished.
Highest number of works in a year were recommended during the last year of Lok Sabha tenure with more than 87.7 thousand works. There is a year on year increase in the number of works recommended during the tenure of the 16 Lok Sabha, with around 54 thousand works being recommended during the first year i.e. 2014-15.
Out of all the works recommended by Lok Sabha MPs during 2014-19, around 86% have been sanctioned by the district authorities. The highest number of works completed were for the third year of the tenure i.e. 2016-17 with 58.9 thousand works completed. However, large number of works that are more recent i.e. recommended during the last two years of tenure, remain unfinished with only around 54 thousand and 43 thousand completed respectively.
Major portion of utilization of Funds is during last years of Lok Sabha Tenure
As the data indicates, majority of the pending works belong to the last two years of the Lok Sabha tenure. The pendency is not just due to the fact that they were recently recommended, but also because of the substantial increase in the number of works recommended by the MPs during the last years of the Lok Sabha tenure. The data from 16 Lok Sabha, indicates that during the initial years, the value of projects recommended and expenditure on the projects is relatively less than the amount made available. This is covered up in the subsequent years.
Apart from 16 Lok Sabha, the CAG’s 2011 Report on MPLADS, also makes a similar observation for the period 2004-2009.
The expenditure was highest during 2004-05 and 2008-09. CAG observes that : ‘The two peaks in the expenditure incurred in 2004-05 and 2008-09, were coterminous with the beginning and close of the 14th Lok Sabha and the pre-election years of the 15th Lok Sabha respectively’.
This clearly indicates that the there is an increase in the expenditure of MPLADS funds as the tenure of the Lok Sabha draws to a close and when the MPs get ready to face the next election.
Discipline in planning and execution needed to ensure the purpose of MPLADS is met
MPLADS was introduced in 1993, to provide MPs with a mechanism to take up works that are developmental in nature and to create durable community assets. Taking up local development works without the need to wait for Central or State Level budgetary grants was the key idea behind this scheme.
Accordingly, the allocation was increased from ₹ 5 lakhs per year to ₹ 5 crores over a period of time. As per the data in the latest published annual report of 2016-17, the percentage of utilization of the funds ranged around 88-92% over a period of ten years, while the completion of works was on average around 90%.
However, as observed earlier, most of the work happens during the last years of a Lok Sabha tenure. A more planned approach could help in ensuring that the projects are initiated earlier and completed on time, rather than remaining pending at the end of a tenure.
Apart from this CAG has also observed discrepancies in the implementation of the scheme. Few of the major lapses observed by CAG in its 2010-11 report includes:
CAG has also highlighted issues with the utilization of the funds, as discussed in this story.
Apart from these, there are also allegations of misappropriation of funds under the scheme. Recently, in 2019, there were allegations about a Union Minister, where in CAG highlighted a fraudulent and irregular payment of ₹ 5.93 crores without a tender to a cooperative society from the MPLADS funds.
Factly has earlier written as story on the utilization of the funds over the years along with the observations and recommendations of CAG in 2011. The key recommendations were around brining in transparency and accountability in the execution of the works under MPLADS.
With the two-year suspension of MPLADS, it is a good opportunity to complete the pending works and utilize the unspent amount. It is also a good time to review the implementation of the MPLADS scheme, before charting the further course of the scheme.

created: August 7, 2020