text:
Data: 60% of the Adopted Children are Female, 80% in the 0-2 Age Group
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 22, 2024
Data from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) indicates that in the last 10 years, female children accounted for 60% of those adopted. Further, 80% of all the children adopted were in the 0-2 age group. Recently, the parliamentary standing committee highlighted the need to harmonize various laws and create a uniform adoption legislation that is transparent, accountable, and applicable to all, regardless of religion, to simplify adoptions.
The emotional dilemma of the “unwanted child” stands as one of society’s most disheartening challenges. Adoption plays a crucial role in addressing this issue by expanding the definition of what it means to be a parent. It creates an opportunity for children who cannot return to their biological parents to have a stable family life, thus redefining the notion of family to include relationships not bound by blood. The following quote sums up the noble intention behind adoptions: ‘adopting a child might not change the world, but for that child, the world will change’.
Demand for adoption has increased in recent years. While some of the common causes attributed to adoption are delayed marriages, postponement of childbearing, and infertility, a substantial proportion of adoptive parents are motivated by a sense of altruism, rather than issues related to their own ability to conceive.
In today’s story, we look at trends and issues in adoption in India. Factly’s previous stories on adoptions can be read here , here, and here.
Dip in adoptions: Second lowest figures in a decade for 2022-23.
The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) plays a pivotal role in fostering domestic adoptions, streamlining inter-state adoptions, formulating regulations concerning adoption, and overseeing inter-country adoption as the designated Central Authority under the Hague Convention.
The data on adoptions from CARA show that, with a total of 3441 adoptions, 2022-23 stands as the year with the second lowest number of adoptions after 2021-22. The total adoptions rose from 3677 during 2015-16 to 4027 in 2018-19, after which there was a decline in the adoptions till 2020-21. The year 2022-23 recorded a marginal increase compared to the previous year.
Out of the total adoptions, in-country adoptions account for more than 85%, while inter-country adoptions account for the rest. This is partly owing to the difference in the procedures relating to adoption, with inter-country adoptions requiring additional scrutiny and enhanced safeguard measures.
3 out of every 5 children adopted are female.
The gender-wise details on adoption show that there is a gender preference in adoption. In India, in the past 9 years from 2013-14 (except 2017-18), around 13,962 male children were adopted. In contrast, 20,396 female children were adopted during the same period. On average, 3 out of every 5 children adopted tends to be female.
This trend is surprising, considering India is a country where preference for a son is ingrained in societal norms. The notion of daughters being sought after for adoption is surprising. The exact cause behind such preference is unknown.
Lesser the age, greater the preference for adoption
The data on the age-group-wise adoptions show the inherent preference for adopting children of lower ages. From 2015-16 till 2021-22 (up to 31 January 2022), out of the total 19,737 children adopted, a staggering 15,865 children, accounting for 80% of the total, belonged to 0-2 years. This is followed by 2-4 years at 8%, 4-6 years at 5%, 6-8 years and 8-10 years at 2%, and the rest at 1% and below. Even among the 0-2 years, almost 85% of those are infants, i.e. belonging to age 0-1 years.
The underlying factors behind such preferences could possibly be due to the notion that childhood interventions are better early than late. Additionally, the earlier the adoption, the higher potential to reap substantial psychological and physical advantages for adopted children.
Only 9 legally free children available for every 100 prospective adoptive parents
Adoption in India is a tedious process. It takes an average of 2 years for Prospective adoptive parents to get a referral for children in the age group of 0-4 years, as per the Ministry of Women and Child Development. This could be due to multiple factors: availability of children who are legally free for adoption, choice of the Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) to adopt from a particular State, and also the age group.
Further, as per the Standing Committee report on guardianship and adoption laws, as of 16 December 2021, a total of 26,734 PAPs have registered with CARA and are waiting for a referral for In-country adoption and 1205 PAPs are awaiting Inter-Country adoption. However, a total of 6996 Orphaned/Abandoned/Surrendered children are residing in Childcare Institutions linked with State Adoption Agencies, out of which 2430 are declared legally free for adoption and 4566 children are in process at different levels before being declared legally free for adoption by Child Welfare Committee.
That is, only 9 children are legally free for adoption for every 100 PAPs. This is a highly paradoxical situation; given the high willingness of people to adopt than the number of children available. Hence, the Committee stressed the need for timely surveys to get a true picture of the children abandoned/orphaned and also prevent illegal and informal adoptions. Further, the ministry also should act on the adoption rackets and commercialization of adoption.
Need a uniform and transparent law on adoption.
Considering the necessity for more child-friendly, welfare-oriented laws regarding adoption and guardianship in India, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice explored the subject ‘Review of Guardianship and Adoption Laws’ in 2022. In India, the laws that govern adoption and guardianship are:
While each law had its shortcomings, the committee found the existing anomalies and inconsistencies between the laws.
Some of the anomalies highlighted by the committee are.
The Committee believes that both the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) and the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) have their strengths and weaknesses. While HAMA offers a simpler and quicker adoption process compared to the JJ Act, adoptions under the JJ Act are more transparent and accountable. However, the Committee observes that the adoption regulations under the JJ Act are complex and prone to delays. Consequently, there’s a need to harmonize these laws and create a uniform adoption legislation that is transparent, accountable, and applicable to all, regardless of religion, to simplify adoptions. Currently, the lack of mechanisms for adoption through recognized agencies and compulsory registration of adoptions leads to unregulated private adoptions under HAMA. These adoptions are not in line with international conventions like the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, to which India is a signatory. The absence of data on HAMA adoptions also poses challenges for monitoring and preventing trafficking. Therefore, the Committee recommends mandatory registration of adoption deeds with the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to facilitate monitoring and regulation of all adoptions.


text:
Data: 9% Increase in The Number of Complaints Received under Ombudsman Schemes in 2021-22 - FACTLY
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 23, 2023
The RBI setup the ‘Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 (RB-IOS)’ in November 2021 to integrate the three existing ombudsman schemes. While the total number of complaints received under various ombudsman schemes increased by 9% in 2021-22, about 1/4th of the complaints was dealt by the Centralized Receipt and Processing Center (CRPC), established for preliminary scrutiny and processing of all physical and email complaints.
Provision of an Ombudsman helps understand customer grievances in relation to services provide by the respective entities and work towards resolution. The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 (RB-IOS) aims to achieve the same. This scheme integrated the following three existing three Ombudsman schemes of RBI:
Factly’s explainer on this Integrated Ombudsman Scheme can be read here. Introduced in 2021, one of the main goals of the integrated scheme is to ease the process of filing a complaint by being a single point of contact for all the complaints raised.
The recently released RBI’s Annual Report on Ombudsman schemes for 2021-22, provides data regarding the trends in the complaints. Factly’s analysis on the trends in earlier years can be read here, here and here.  In the first of this two-part series, we look at the trends in complaints received.
9% increase in the total complaints received during 2021-22
The RBI-IOS was introduced in November 2021, and it received 72.58 thousand complaints during the remaining period of 2021-22. Along with RBI-IOS, Centralized Receipt and Processing Center (CRPC) was established for preliminary scrutiny and processing of all physical and email complaints. Main purpose of implementing CRPC is to screen and reduce the number of complaints forwarded to Ombudsman. 1.13 lakh complaints were handled and disposed by CRPC in 2021-22.
If the complaints received and resolved by CRPC are excluded, around 3.04 lakh complaints were received under the various ombudsman schemes for resolution during 2021-22. During the period April-November 2022, complaints were received through the three ombudsman schemes. 2.09 lakh complaints were received by BOS, over 20 thousand were received by OSNBFC and a further 2,281 received by ODT. Overall, a total of 4.18 lakh complaints were received during 2021-22 (April- March). It has to be noted that this is across the three earlier ombudsman schemes, the new integrated RB-IOS and CRPC
The number of complaints received in 2021-22 is 9% more than in 2020-21, when 3.82 lakh complaints were received across the three Ombudsman schemes.  In the earlier years, the period of consideration was July-June as per RBI’s earlier fiscal year. During 2019-20, the total number of complaints received was 3.08 lakhs. While the trend of increasing year-on-year complaints continued in 2021-22 (April-March), the growth rate has reduced.
50% of the complaints received by ORBIOs in Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kanpur & Chandigarh
As already highlighted, during 2021-22, 1.13 lakh complaints were received and disposed by CRPC and about 3.08 lakhs were handled by the 22 ORBIOs (Office of Reserve Bank of India Ombudsman) across the country, each of which has a geographical jurisdiction.
In 2021-22, the greatest number of complaints were received by New Delhi-II ORBIO with 24,259 complaints. The other two offices in Delhi i.e., New Delhi-I & New Delhi-III received 15.3 thousand and 8.8 thousand complaints respectively. The Kanpur ORBIO received the second highest with 24 thousand complaints which accounts for 7.95% of the total number of complaints. Mumbai has two offices, with Mumbai-I receiving 18.8 thousand complaints and Mumbai-II receiving 20.6 thousand complaints. Chennai & Chandigarh are next with 21.4 and 20.3 thousand complaints.
Compared to 2020-21, there is a fall in the number of complaints received across all the ORBIOs. This can be attributed to the disposal of complaints at the CRPC without they being forwarded to the ORBIOs.
Delhi, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra have major share of Ombudsman complaints
As per the Annual report for 2021-22, about 2.85 complaints are received per one lakh accounts on average across India. In terms of geographical distribution, i.e., the number of complaints in proportion to the total number of accounts held by Scheduled Commercial Banks (SCBs) in a State, Delhi, Chandigarh, Haryana, Gujarat & Maharashtra are the top-5 states. Comparatively, this average is lower in Northeast India.
The annual report observes that the higher complaints in these top states could be due to higher awareness levels, better availability of financial services, connectivity (physical & online), among other things.
A higher proportion of the complaints received are through the complaint portal. In 2021-22, before the implementation of the integrated ombudsman scheme, 61.4% complaints were received through the portal. After the implementation of the integrated scheme, this share is 57%.
There is an increased proportion of complaints received through physical letters after the introduction of the integrated scheme, with this accounting for 15.5% of the total complaints received. Prior to that, it was about 9.9% with the three older schemes. It remains to be seen if this trend of complaints received through physical letters increases in the coming years.
A major portion of the complaints received continue to be from Metropolitan cities followed by Urban centres. Post the implementation of the integrated scheme, there is an increase in the share of the complaints received from urban areas. This is at the expense of the fall in complaints from rural areas.
Majority of complaints against Banks are those relating to Debit Cards and Online banking
In 2021-22, the complaints related to ATM/Debit cards and Online banking remain the greatest in terms of complaints against banks. Despite the number complaints related to ATM/Debit cards being the highest, the share continues to have a declining trend. This is due to an increase in the complaints related to other areas of banking – mobile/electronic banking, credit cards, loans & advances, etc.
Among NBFCs, a major share are the complaints related to loans & advances or non-adherence to Fair Practices Code (FPC). In the case of NBPSPs (Non-Banking Payment System Participant), nearly 39% are relating to Mobile or Electronic Fund transfers while another 30% of the complaints are issues with UPI related fund transfers. All these are the complaints which are handled by ORBIOs.
51% of the complaints received are related to Public Sector banks
In the previous year i.e., 2020-21, 45% of the complaints received were related to Public Sector Banks (PSBs). In 2021-22, this increased to 50.8%. During April-November, when there were 3 different schemes, PSBs received 51.37% of the complaints, while after the implementation of the integrated ombudsman, the share is 49%.  In terms of absolute numbers, the number of complaints fell from 1.74 lakhs to 1.54 lakhs.
The complaints against private sector banks received by ORBIOs fell from 1.26 lakhs to 94.2 thousand. While there is an increase in the number of complaints received against payment and small finance banks, this is a continuation of trend observed in the recent years, with the share of complaints relating to payment and small finance banks on the rise.
A fall in the complaints related to NBFCs is also observed in 2021-22, which also contributed to reduction of its share in the total complaints. In 2020-21, the share was 8.15%, which fell to 7.33% in 2021-22.  In 2021-22, prior to implementation of the integrated scheme, the share was 7.8% of the complaints, that fell to 5.8% for the Integrated ombudsman scheme.
Decrease in the number of complaints received by ORBIOs with implementation of Integrated scheme
In the earlier years, a considerable portion of the complaints were non-maintainable complaints or complaints that were raised incorrectly. One of the main purposes of introducing CRPC as part of the new Integrated Ombudsman framework, is to handle such complaints so that there is lesser burden on ombudsman offices.
As noted earlier, there is a discernible impact on the number of complaints received by ORBIOs. Around 1.13 lakh complaints were received and disposed by CRPCs, the impact of which can be seen in the fall in actual number of complaints handled by Ombudsman offices during 2021-22.
However, this observation is based on data of only the first few months. It is to be seen if this trend continues in the ensuing years. Furthermore, the purpose of reducing the burden on ORBIOs is to ensure a better disposal of the complaints. We will analyse the trends of disposal in the next story.

source: news-factly

created: January 23, 2023

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

author: Sai Krishna Muthyanolla


text:
95% of Districts in UP & Bihar report less than 10% Vaccination Coverage
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
June 5, 2021
In the previous story, we had observed the stark differences in vaccine coverage among various states with UP, Bihar, Tamil Nadu etc. lagging behind others. District wise data indicates that 95% of the districts in UP & Bihar have reported less than 10% vaccine coverage i.e., population receiving at least one dose.
In the previous story, we reviewed the status of Vaccination across various States/UTs in the country. Significant differences were observed in the vaccine coverage among the states, with U.P, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand & Assam having vaccinated less than 10% of their respective populations with at least one dose.
In this story, we take a look at more granular data i.e., vaccination across the districts to get a more detailed understanding of the trends in vaccination coverage.
Methodology: As in the earlier story, population of the districts from 2011 Census is taken as the base since no other latest population data is available.
Less than 10% of the population received at least one dose in 40% of the districts
Among the 639 districts that have been analysed based on 2011 Census, 40 districts have vaccination coverage of less than 5%. A further 216 districts have Vaccination coverage ranging from 5% to 10%. Overall, around 40% of all the districts in the country have reported a vaccination coverage of less than 10%.
A higher proportion i.e.  43% of the districts have reported a vaccination coverage between 10% and 20%. The vaccination coverage ranges from 20-30% in about 14% of the districts. Only about 3% of districts have managed to vaccinate more than 30% of their population with at least one dose. Only 16 districts have vaccinated more than 10% of their population with both doses.
Since the population of the districts is based on projections and not actual data, there could be some variances on ground. However, these numbers are broadly indicative of the trends.
95% of the districts in Bihar & Uttar Pradesh have Vaccination coverage of less than 10%
In the earlier analysis of the states, it was observed that U.P, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand & Assam have reported a vaccination coverage of less than 10% of their population. The district-wise numbers also reflect this trend.
Among the 38 districts in Bihar, 37 districts have reported a vaccination coverage of less than 10%. In Uttar Pradesh, 67 out of the 71 districts have reported vaccination coverage of less than 10%. In other words, 97% and 94% of the districts in Bihar & U.P respectively have reported vaccination coverage of less than 10%, bringing down the overall numbers for the state.
Comparatively, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand & Assam fare better in terms of distribution of the districts with lower vaccine coverage.  Tamil Nadu has around 81% districts with less than 10% vaccination coverage, while it is 79% and 78% in Jharkhand & Assam respectively. Madhya Pradesh is another state which has more than 70% of the districts with less than 10% vaccination coverage. Among the other large states, vaccination coverage is less than 10% in half of the 20 districts in Punjab and 9 of the 19 districts in West Bengal.
Vaccination Coverage is less than 10% in about 15% of the Urban and 44% of the Rural districts
The only district in Bihar which has reported more than 10% vaccination coverage is Patna, the capital city. As per the 2011 Census, Patna district has around 43% Urban population.  Even in Uttar Pradesh, the districts that reported more than 10% vaccination coverage are predominantly urban.  All the four districts with more than 10% vaccination Coverage in Uttar Pradesh are Urban-majority districts. In fact, the district of Gautam Buddha Nagar, which is part of NCR (National Capital Region) has reported around 26% of vaccine coverage. The one urban-majority district which is not part of this list is Kanpur Nagar which reported only 9% vaccine coverage.
The same is observed even in the case of other states with lower vaccine coverage – Assam, Jharkhand & Tamil Nadu etc. In all these states, districts with comparatively higher vaccine coverage are either districts with Urban-majority population or districts which have a city or a major town.
As indicated earlier, the criteria of categorization of Urban & Rural is based on the district’s projected population from the 2011 Census.  There could be certain districts which have a majority rural-majority population but have major urban dwelling, like in the case of Patna.
The Urban-Rural divide in terms of vaccination coverage is also visible at the national level.
Out of the 639 districts as per 2011 Census that are analysed, 557 are Rural-majority districts and 82 are Urban-majority districts. Around 44% of the Rural-majority districts have reported vaccination-coverage of less than 10%, while it is only 15% among the Urban-majority districts.
Around 36% districts reported less than 50% vaccination coverage among 60+ age group
As noted in the previous story, 62% of the population in the 60+ age group have received at least a single dose of vaccination. However, the distribution is not uniform among the districts.
Around 36% of the districts have reported a vaccination coverage of less than 50% among its 60 + age group population. As highlighted earlier, vaccination coverage here indicates population receiving at least one dose of the vaccine.
Most of the district with lower coverage are in Uttar Pradesh & Tamil Nadu. Bihar, Assam & Jharkhand have a slightly better coverage in the 60+ age group. Meanwhile, around 24% of the districts have reported more than 90% vaccination coverage among the 60+ age group. A total of 66 out of 82 Urban majority districts have reported a vaccination coverage of more than 90% among the 60+ age group.
In the 45-60 age group, only 27% of the districts reported a vaccination coverage of more than 50%
About 38% of the population in the age-group of 45-60 years has received at-least one dose of vaccination. This is comparatively lower than coverage in the 60+ age group.
The difference is even more stark if the districts with a higher vaccination coverage are concerned.  As pointed out earlier, 24% of the districts reported a vaccination coverage of more than 90% among the 60+ age group. But this is only around 6% or 38 districts, for 45-60 age group.
Only about 27% of the districts have reported vaccination coverage of more than 50% among the 45-60 age group. The concentration of urban-majority districts among those with a higher vaccination coverage is not as evident as seen in the case of 60+ age group. This may be due to the overall lower vaccination coverage of this age group.
Apart from state-wise variation, a clear rural-urban divide is visible in vaccination coverage
The trends in vaccination coverage across the districts largely conform to the trends observed in the analysis of the states. Most of the districts with low vaccine coverage belong to the states of U.P, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Assam & Jharkhand, which also happen to be the states with lower vaccine coverage.
As observed in this story, a majority of the districts in these states have vaccinated (single dose) less than 10% of their population with at least one dose. The proportion of population that received both doses is much lower.
The district-wise trends also match the overall state-wise & age-group wise trends. The state wise variances are also reflected in the age-related trends, with most of the districts with lower vaccination coverage in respective age-groups belonging to states with overall lower vaccine coverage.
Another important trend which the district-wise data reveals is the stark difference between Urban & Rural vaccine coverage. Urban-Majority districts have fared well in vaccinating a higher proportion of their population compared to the districts with majority Rural population.  This brings to the fore the questions around vaccine hesitancy, awareness, health infrastructure, supply & distribution challenges etc.
A different strategy is the need of the hour to increase the vaccine coverage in districts that are lagging behind, with a special focus on rural areas.  Further delay could create potential future waves of COVID-19 infection in states with poor health infrastructure.
Featured Image: Vaccination Coverage in Indian states


text:
97% of cases relating to Economic Offences are pending in courts by end of 2020
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 28, 2021
Economic offences have been in the limelight for the last few years with a few high-profile individuals fleeing the country after duping banks of thousands of crores. Data from the latest NCRB’s Crime in India report indicates that more than 97% of the cases relating to economic offences are pending in courts by the end of 2020, the highest so far. Coupled with the high pendency is the low conviction rate in these offences.
More than three years after Mehul Choksi & Nirav Modi fled India in wake of the Punjab National Bank scam involving Rs.13.5 thousand crores, India is still making efforts to get them extradited and make them face trial in India. The same is the case with Vijay Mallya, whom the authorities are trying to bring back from London.
While these are some of the high-profile cases relating to economic offences, thousands of other economic crimes take place every year which are not reported in the media.  Over the years, there is an increasing trend in the number of such offences being reported. Various laws are in place to deal with different types of Economic offences.
In this story, we analyse the trend in economic offences reported in which police has taken cognizance and their disposal, based on the Information provided in National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Crime in India report.
In 2020, Economic offences make up around 3.4% of all cognizable IPC crimes
As per NCRB’s Crime in India report – 2020, the total number of economic offences in the country in 2020 was 1.45 lakhs. This constitutes around 3.4% of all cognizable IPC crimes reported in the year. The number of economic offences has reduced compared to 2019 when it was 1.65 lakhs. This is in line with the trend observed across major crimes heads during 2020, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The crime rate in the case of economic offences for 2020 was 10.8 per lakh population, down from 12.4 in 2019. The decline in 2020 can be considered an exception, based on the trends in previous years. Data over the five-year period (2016-2020) shows that there has been a year-on-year increase in the number of economic offences reported. In 2016, the number of economic offences was 1.43 lakhs, and the crime rate was 11.3, which increased to 1.65 lakh in 2019 with a crime rate of 12.4 per lakh population.
Nearly 88% of the Economic Offences in 2020 were related to Forgery, Cheating & Fraud (FCF)
In NCRB’s Crime in India (CII) report, Economic Offences are categorized under three major crime heads.
Among these, the greatest number of offences are recorded under the head – Forgery, Cheating & Fraud (FCF). In 2020, total offences related to FCF were around 1.27 lakhs, which accounted for nearly 88% of all economic offences. About 17.35 thousand cases were related to ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ and another 672 cases were related to counterfeiting.
Trends over the past few years indicate that there is a year-on-year increase in the proportion of offences booked for forgery, cheating & fraud of all Economic offences.  In 2016, these three constituted nearly 86% of all Economic offences and in 2017 it was 85.5%, which increased in the ensuing years.
Since 2017, NCRB’s CII report has combined all the Economic offences related to Forgery, Cheating & fraud under one head. Hence, we do not have separate data on each of these specific crimes. However, as per the data for 2016, Cheating constituted nearly 89% of the crimes under Forgery & Cheating (the crimes under Fraud were not separately recorded under economic offences in 2016). While the separate data under each of these heads is no more available, it can be concluded that the number of cases under ‘cheating’ could make up for the bulk of such cases even now.
In 2020, more than 100 offences were booked with Misappropriation of at least 25 crores each
Of all the Economic offences reported in 2020, more than 81 thousand cases involved misappropriation (loss or property). In around half of these, the misappropriation amount is less than a lakh rupees. In another 1/3 of the cases, the misappropriation amount was between 1 lakh and 10 lakhs. In more than 1500 cases, the misappropriation amount is more than a crore rupees. 24 of these offences involved misappropriation amounts of more than 100 crores rupees each.
The trends even in the earlier years are on the same lines, except for offences with misappropriation amounts of 50-100 crore rupees. There were 353 such cases in 2019 which is an exception. In fact, in each of 2017, 2018 & 2020, the number of cases involving misappropriation amount between 50 and 100 crores was less than 40. It is worth noting that 332 of the 353 such cases in 2019 were registered in Andhra Pradesh alone.
More than 60% of the cases are pending investigation by the police by end of 2020
During 2020, around 3.28 lakh cases relating to Economic Offences were with the police for investigation. Out of these, around 1.27 lakh cases i.e., around 39% of the cases were disposed of by the police. In about 59 thousand cases, a final report was filed, and cases were closed while charge-sheet was filed and cases were sent for trial in courts in around 68 thousand cases.
By the end of 2020, more than 2 lakh cases accounting for nearly 61% of the total cases under investigation by police in 2020 were still pending.  The trends over the last five years (2016 to 2020) indicate an increase in the percentage of cases pending with the police year on year.
With an increasing number of new cases every year, the cases to be investigated by the police have also been increasing. Though the number of cases being disposed of by the police i.e., either by submitting a final report or by filing a charge sheet has also increased, it has not kept pace with the number of new cases resulting in increasing pendency over the years.
For instance, in the year 2020, despite fewer new cases compared to 2019, the disposal rate of the police has come down 39% compared to 45% in 2019. While COVID-19 related enforcement measures could have burdened the police, the lower disposal is a concern.
Nearly 97% of the economic offences are pending trial with the courts by end of 2020
In 2020, a total of 6.35 lakh cases relating to economic offences were up for trial in the courts. Of these, the courts have disposed of only 20.5 thousand cases. Of the disposed cases, around 5.9 thousand cases resulted in a conviction, while another 11.75 thousand cases have resulted in discharge or acquittal.  By the end of 2020, around 6.15 lakh cases i.e., 97% of all the cases up for trial during the year were pending.
The pending rate has gone up substantially in 2020, from around 93.6% in 2019. Between 2016 & 2020, the pendency percentage has consistently gone up to reach 97% by the end of 2020.
As is the case with Police disposal, the court disposal of cases reduced significantly in 2020 owing to the non-functioning of courts for a certain period during the pandemic.
In addition to the higher pendency, a lower conviction rate in economic offences is a cause for concern.  The conviction rate is much less than the overall conviction rate for all IPC crimes.
Increasing pendency with police & courts along with lower convictions is the feature of economic offences
As is the case with most other major crimes, there is an increase in the number of pending cases both with the police as well as the courts. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 exacerbated the already grave situation in courts grappling with high pendency.
As highlighted earlier, the conviction rate in the case of economic crimes is around 30%, much less than the more than 50% conviction rate for all IPC crimes put together. In fact, close to half the cases do not even reach the courts as the police seem to be filing final reports without a charge sheet. All this could mean a rise in cases without adequate evidence and a lack of proper investigation by the police resulting in acquittal.
Featured Image: Economic Offences in India

created: October 28, 2021


text:
Data: 98% Complaints Were Disposed by The RBI’s Ombudsman in 2021-22
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
January 27, 2023
Data from the RBI’s annual report on the ‘Ombudsman Schemes’ indicates that the overall disposal rate increased to 98% in 2021-22. The data also indicated that the TAT has decreased after the introduction of integrated scheme. It remains to be seen if this trend continues in the coming years.
An effective Ombudsman scheme not only provides a platform for customers to register their grievances but also ensures the disposal of these complaints in a quick and effective manner. Disposal of grievances was fairly effective in the earlier existing three banking-related ombudsman schemes, with a disposal rate of more than 90%. A key component of the newly introduced RBI’s Integrated Ombudsman Scheme was to facilitate an easier process of lodging complaints. Another major feature of this framework was the introduction of CRPC, through which the grievances were screened and forwarded to the Ombudsman office (ORBIO). With the disposal of a substantial number of complaints by CRPC, fewer complaints are expected to be handled by ORBIOs, thereby providing them with more bandwidth for effective and quicker resolution of the complaints.
In the first story of this two-part series, we highlighted that even though the number of total complaints with the ombudsman has increased in 2021-22, the number of complaints handled by ORBIO reduced, with CRPC disposing of around 1.14 lakh complaints.  In this story, we look at the trends in the disposal of complaints.
Note:  The data for 2021-22 was provided for the period April-March, in line with the change in the Fiscal year of RBI. However, the data for disposals in the earlier years was for the July-June period.  The data for 2019-20 data is for the period July’2019 -June ‘2020, whereas for 2020-21, the information is provided for the 9-month period of July’2020-March’2021.  Hence, the numbers may be proportionate.
98% of the complaints received by ORBIOs in 2021-22 were disposed
A total of 3.04 lakh complaints were received by all the ORBIOs during 2021-22 (April -March). These do not include the complaints that were resolved by CRPC during the year.  Further, 11.4 thousand complaints were carried forward from the previous year. Hence, a total of 3.17 lakh complaints were handled by ORBIOs during 2021-22. This includes the complaints received from the three erstwhile schemes as well as the integrated scheme.
Out of these, 3.11 lakh complaints i.e., 97.9% of the complaints were disposed. This is comparatively higher than in 2020-21. As per the data provided for the 9-month period of July’19 to March’20 for 2020-21, a total of 3.35 lakh complaints were handled out of which, 3.23 lakh complaints were disposed. The disposal rate during this period is 96.6%.  During the full year of 2019-20 (July-June), 3.17 lakh complaints were disposed out of 3.42 lakh handled during the year. Hence the disposal rate was 92.5%.
The number of complaints carried forward to 2021-22 from the previous year was comparatively less than in previous years which has contributed to a higher disposal rate.
Increase in the share of Rejected complaints
Maintainable complaints are those that are valid under the ambit of the scheme. In 2021-22, 1.75 lakh maintainable complaints were disposed. Out of these, 1.11 lakh complaints were disposed through Mutual Settlement/Agreement. This is 63% of the maintainable complaints.
Although this mode remains the major form of disposal even in 2021-22, the share has reduced compared to earlier years. During the 9 months of July’2020 to March’2021, 72.7% of the complaints were disposed through mutual agreements or settlement. During 2019-20 (July to June), this was 72%.
There is an increase in the share of disposal of maintainable complaints through rejection. This increased from around 27% in the earlier years to nearly 36% in 2021-22. The Annual report does not provide information on the reasons behind the rejection of maintainable complaints.
There is also an exponential increase in the withdrawn complaints among the maintainable ones. During 2019-20 and 2020-21, it was 182 & 197 respectively. But during 2021-22, it increased to 952. There is also a drop in the disposal by Award. Only 33 complaints were disposed in this mode, compared to 68 & 65 in the two immediately preceding years.
Fall in the share of long pending complaints that are carried forward
6.4 thousand complaints are carried forward to 2022-23 compared to 11.4 thousand complaints that were carried forward to 2021-22 from 2020-21 This is a continuation of the trend, with fewer complaints being carried forward. A total of 25.6 thousand complaints were carried forward from 2019-20.  Apart from the fall in the number of complaints that are being carried forward, there is also a fall in the number of long pending complaints.
By end of 2019-20, nearly 54% of the complaints that were carried forward, were pending for more than three months. Comparatively, they constitute only 2.5% of the complaints that were carried forward by end of 2021-22.  A higher proportion of the complaints are those that are pending for less than 30 days.
Non-maintainable complaints are 43% of the complaints received by ORBIOs
A complaint received is considered non-maintainable if the nature of the complaint is outside the purview of the Ombudsman or if the complaint has been raised incorrectly. Out of the total complaints received by ORBIOs in 2021-22, nearly 43% i.e., 1.35 lakhs were deemed as non-maintainable. This number does not include 1.14 lakh complaints disposed by CRPC as non-maintainable.
During the period July’2020 -March.2021, there were 1.2 lakh non-maintainable complaints.
The Annual report does not provide any further breakup of the number of non-maintainable complaints received after the implementation of the RBI-IBS framework, which would throw further light on the efficacy of CRPC to reduce the burden on the Ombudsman’s office by disposing of the non-maintainable complaints.
As per the available data, around 39 thousand complaints were considered non-maintainable by the erstwhile BOS, while another 9 thousand were non-maintainable by the ombudsman relating to NBFCs. The available data does indicate that a sizeable number of complaints deemed as non-maintainable were after the new scheme was implemented.
Nearly 31% of the complaints deemed as non-maintainable were disposed because of the reason that they are ‘First Resort Complaints’ i.e., they did not approach the bank prior to raising a complaint with Ombudsman. ‘Not on grounds of Complaint’, ‘Not represented Property’ and ‘Earlier Dealt by BO’ are the other major reasons for non-maintainable complaints.
Efficacy of the new Integrated Ombudsman scheme can only be ascertained in coming years
The lower tenure of the pending complaints indicates a faster disposal of the complaints by the ombudsman. The annual report does highlight the fall in the TAT in disposal of the complaints after the implementation of RBIOS.
However, it cannot be conclusively ascertained if this is the impact of the new ombudsman scheme. Trends from the coming years would provide an indication of the impact of the integrated ombudsman scheme.
Meanwhile, there is an increase in the cost incurred per complaint. In 2021-22, it is Rs. 2,895 per the complaint, while it was Rs.1,599 in 2020-21. The Annual report states that it is due to the additional hiring for the implementation of the new integrated scheme. It also needs to be seen if RB-IOS helps reduce the overall cost in the future.
Featured Image: RBI’s Annual Report on Ombudsman Schemes

created: January 27, 2023


text:
Data: About 62% of the funds released under the ‘Nirbhaya Fund’ utilized so far
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 26, 2021
The Nirbhaya Fund was set up in response to the 2012 gruesome gangrape in Delhi and was meant to fund multiple schemes to promote the safety of women. The latest data indicates that a total of 62% of the released funds are utilized so far. Here is a detailed review.
Nirbhaya Fund was constituted by the Government of India, as a corpus fund to support initiatives and measures taken to ensure the safety of women. This was created in conjuncture with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, commonly known as the Nirbhaya Act.
The Ministry of Finance has issued guidelines on 25 March 2015, regarding the framework of the Nirbhaya Fund. It is a non-lapsable corpus fund that is administered by the Ministry of Finance’s Department of Economic affairs. The Ministry of Women & Child Development is the nodal ministry to appraise the proposals of the recommended schemes that can be funded under the Nirbhaya Fund.
We had earlier written a story, explaining about Nirbhaya Fund and its utilization till 2018-19. Recently, responding to a question in Lok Sabha on 05 February 2021, the government provided an update on the allocation and utilization of funds for various schemes under the Nirbhaya Fund.
As per the update, a total of Rs. 3544 crores were released so far i.e nearly 62% of the Rs. 5713 crores allocated and 37.7% of the total worth of schemes appraised up to January 2021.
We analyze these numbers further and also review the progress made under various schemes utilizing Nirbhaya Fund.
None of the funds allocated under Department of Justice have been utilized
Multiple schemes under various ministries were allocated funds for initiatives to improve the safety of women in the country. There are variances in the extent of utilization across these schemes.
The proportionately higher utilization of the allocated funds is largely due to the greater utilization of funds for schemes under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
As per the update provided in Lok Sabha recently, a total of Rs. 2.24 thousand crores were released under various projects under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The funds are from the period 2015-16 to 2020-21 across 36 States & UTs. This is the highest amount released through any ministry under Nirbhaya Fund. Out of this, 79% has been utilized so far.
Among schemes under the Ministry of Women & Child Development (MWCD),
However, the utilization is low for a few of the other schemes for which funds were allocated.
Half of the total funds released under Nirbhaya Fund went to Five states
Large variances exist in the release of the Nirbhaya funds to the states. Delhi, where the Nirbhaya incident took place and where multiple incidents regarding women’s safety are reported, has received the highest allocation of the funds.
A total of Rs. 412 crores were released to Delhi-NCR (National Capital Region). A major portion of these funds was under the various projects initiated under the aegis of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Delhi is followed by Uttar Pradesh, with Rs. 340.49 crores. As is the case with Delhi, a major portion of the funds released were under the various projects initiated by MHA. A total of Rs. 50.72 crores were released to U.P under the “One Stop Centre” initiative, the highest for any state in the country.
As per the NCRB-2019 Crime in India (CII) report, Delhi has the second-highest rate of Crime against Women after Assam. Delhi as a city recorded the highest crime rate in 2019, among the Metropolitan Cities as per NCRB’s 2019 CII report.
Uttar Pradesh reported the highest number of crimes against women. This could be attributed to the greatest women population of 10.8 crore women in the state. (mid-year projected population 2019).
These two states are followed by Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra & Karnataka respectively. A major portion of the funds released is under the MHA projects. These three states along with Delhi & U.P   together receive nearly 50 % of the total Nirbhaya funds released to the States/UTs.
Gujarat & Telangana are next in line in terms of the number of crimes against women and also funds received. This could be due to the presence of large cities in these five states.
Tamil Nadu, Delhi & West Bengal among the states with the highest utilization of the released funds
As highlighted earlier, there are variances among the schemes in terms of the allocation & release of these funds. Similar differences are observed even in the utilization of the funds. Around 60% of the released funds have been utilized so far at the national level, as per the details provided in the Lok Sabha.
While there is a disparity in terms of the funds released to the states, their actual utilization influences the success of the schemes/projects taken up. Delhi, which has received the highest funds also is among the top states in terms of utilization with around 85.6% of funds utilized so far. 87% of the funds released for various MHA projects in Delhi have been utilized. Tamil Nadu with 87.8% utilization has utilized the highest proportion of the funds allocated to it.
With the exception of 5 States (Delhi, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka & Telangana), the rest of the States/UTs have utilized less than 65% of the funds released to them. In fact, 23 out of the 35 States/UTs have utilized less than half of the funds released to them.  Some of the large states have utilized less than 30% of the funds released.
A review of the fund utilization indicates that many of the States have low utilization. Furthermore, as highlighted in the earlier part of this story, there are disparities among the schemes/projects in terms of utilization.
A detailed analysis of the utilization of funds under these schemes in specific states would throw more light on the efficacy of the schemes/projects initiated with the Nirbhaya funds.  In the next story, we take a look at each of these Schemes/Projects in detail to understand the trends across the states and also try ascertaining the impact of the same.
Featured Image: Nirbhaya Fund Utilization

created: February 26, 2021


text:
Data: About 70% of the Central Sector projects whose DOC is available are delayed
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
September 22, 2022
Data from the RBI reports & the Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division. of the Ministry of Statistics & Program Implementation indicates that out of those central sector infrastructure projects in 16 sectors whose date of commissioning is available, about 70% are delayed. The average time overrun (delay) of these projects is 41.64 months as of August 2022.
Infrastructure is a key enabler in the economic progress and overall development of a country. The lack of good infrastructure can hinder the progress of the country. Infrastructure projects encompass various important sectors like energy, agriculture, industry, transport, communication, etc.
In a developing nation like India, investment in infrastructure aids a multi-faceted transformation, the importance of which is recognised since the first government of Independent India and continued by successive governments. Over the years, the nature of investment in Infrastructure has changed with initiatives like a public-private partnership (PPPs) encouraging investments from private players. Even then, public investment by Governments continues to be the main driver of infrastructure projects in the country.  Both the Central & State governments invest in infrastructure development, with the Central Government playing a major role in funding major inter-state projects.
Despite being critical, these projects are traditionally fraught with delays due to multiple reasons. In this three-part series, we analyse the status of the Central Sector infrastructure projects in the country with a focus on time delays & cost overruns.  In this first part, we look at the time delays.
Methodology
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has recently published its annual Handbook of Statistics on India Economy. Information from the ‘Implementation of Central Sector Projects – Status’ (Table 35) and ‘Sector-Wise Cost Overrun of Delayed Central Sector Projects’ (Table 36) is the source of data. This data is sourced from the Ministry of Statistics & Program Implementation’s (MOSPI) Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division. (IPMD).
Infrastructure and Project Monitoring of Central Sector Projects costing more than Rs. 150 crores are one of the key mandates of IPMD. This is done through the ‘Online Computerised Monitoring System’ (OCMS), which is updated by the respective project implementing agencies. The IPMD monitors infrastructure projects across 16 sectors.
The information provided by IPMD and reported by RBI is limited to only those projects that are updated on OCMS. Hence, the reported projects do not necessarily reflect all the ongoing central sector projects costing more than Rs.150 crores. Further, the number of Public Enterprises that are reporting the status online has improved over the years, resulting in a greater number of projects in the IPMD database. Hence, it must be noted that the increased number of projects in a particular year does not necessarily mean an actual increase in the number of projects on the ground.
70% of the projects whose ‘Date of Commissioning’ is available are delayed as of end 2021-22.
As of 31 March 2022, the project status of 1,759 projects across 16 sectors was available. Among the details updated with IPMD is the status of the project and the expected time of completion. This provides an estimate of the number of infrastructure projects that are ahead or on Schedule and those that are delayed.
The availability of the ‘Date of Commissioning’ (DOC) of the project is important to ascertain the extent of the delay. A major share of the projects whose status is being updated on the IPMD, do not have an updated DOC.
As of 31 March 2022, 716 out of the 1759 projects do not have a DOC. However, this is an improvement over the previous year, when the DOC was not updated for 813 projects out of the 1656 projects reported.
Among the 1043 projects reported by end of March 2022, and that have a DOC, 726 projects are delayed. A project is considered delayed in reference to the original schedule of the project.
The number of projects delayed is higher than the previous year when it was 596. The ratio of increase in delayed projects is higher than the increase in projects reported, which could imply that there is an actual increase in the number of projects delayed. Few of these projects could be the ones whose DOC is made available.
A total of 302 projects were on schedule and a further 15 projects are ahead of the estimated date of completion. The IPMD publishes a monthly flash report on Central sector projects. As per the latest flash report for August 2022, there were 1526 projects costing more than Rs.150 crores, that were reported. Among these, 12 projects are completed, 647 projects are delayed compared to their original schedule. Another 71 projects reported additional delays, as they were supposed to be completed in the previous months.
More than 90% of the Railway projects with DOC and around 65% of Surface Transport Projects delayed
IPMD monitors projects across 16 sectors. As per the updated data as of 31 March 2022, the greatest number of projects belong to Surface Transport followed by Railways. There was a total of 896 projects reported on OCMS by the end of 2021-22 for the Surface Transport sector. Of these, 505 project does not have a DOC. The surface Transport sector also contributed the highest share of projects not having a DOC. Out of the 391 projects with DOC, 253 projects are delayed and are behind schedule. 130 projects are on schedule and 8 are ahead. The number of projects without DOC is less than the number for 2020-21 when it was 648. The number of delayed projects by end of 2020-21was 155 implying, as indicated earlier, that most projects whose DOC is updated in 2021-22, could be delayed in their implementation.
Out of 285 projects belonging to Railways, 127 do not have DOC to ascertain the status of implementation and the delay. Out of the 158 projects with DOC, only 8 are on schedule and 4 are ahead. 146 projects i.e., 92% of the projects are delayed. This is the highest among the sectors with a sizeable number of infrastructure projects costing over Rs. 150 crores. Since 2020, there is an increase in the number of Railway projects. By end of March 2019, 90 out of the 187 projects with DOC were on schedule or ahead of schedule. This fell to 41 out of 190 by March 2020 and fell further in the ensuing years.
A total of 62% of its projects in the Petroleum sector with a DOC are pending.  Comparatively, the Coal sector is better off with 62 out of 137 projects pending. The Coal sector only has 9 projects without a DOC.
Delays in Land Acquisition, environment clearances and COVID-19 among the reasons cited for time-delays.
The flash report for August’2022 provides information on the duration of the delayed projects. The information is available for the 647 projects updated as delayed as of 31 August 2022 on the OCMS. Out of these projects, 19% are delayed by more than 60 months.
The report states that the average time overrun for the delayed projects is 41.64 months.  Railways which has 124 projects delayed, has 4 projects which are pending for over 200 months and 5 projects which are pending between 100-200 months. Many of the other sectors also have such long-delayed projects.
A review of the projects specified in the flash report shows that these delays reported are from the date of commissioning. However, there are long time gaps between the Date of Approval and the Original Date of Commissioning the project. These point to a much longer delay in the project being approved and further stages of completion.
A few of the important reasons highlighted for the delay in the flash report include – delay in land acquisition, delay in getting environmental clarences, process delays (delay in tendering, getting project finances, contractual issues, change in scope), technical approvals, coordination with state governments, etc. The COVID-19 pandemic is also cited as one of the reasons for the time delays.
In the second part of the story, we would look at the Cost overrun of the projects.
Featured Image: Central Sector projects

created: September 22, 2022


text:
About third of Cancer cases in India & half cases among Men attributed to Tobacco usage
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
October 4, 2021
Recently, the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (NCDIR) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) released a report that analyses the profile of cancer patients in India. The report considered only 6.1 lakh cases out of the total 13.3 lakh cancer cases that were registered in the 96 participating hospitals, due to quality and completeness of the data.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the term ‘Cancer’ is used to refer to a large group of diseases that can affect any part of the body. It is defined by the rapid creation of abnormal cells which grow beyond their usual boundaries. It can then invade the adjoining parts of the body and spread to other organs. The spread of cancer to new parts of the body is known as metastasis, which is the primary cause of death from cancer.
Cancers claimed the lives of 1 crore persons globally in 2020
In 2020 alone, nearly 10 million deaths or one crore deaths globally were because of cancer. Further, around 70% of deaths from cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries. In 2020 alone, lung cancer claimed the lives of over 18 lakh persons. The second most cause of cancer death was colon and rectum cancer which resulted in the death of 9.35 lakh persons followed by liver cancer that claimed the lives of 8.3 lakh persons. Stomach cancer resulted in the death of 7.69 lakh persons worldwide, and breast cancer caused 6.85 lakh deaths. Tobacco use, high Body Mass Index, alcohol consumption, lack of physical activity, and poor fruit and vegetable intake, are responsible for one in three deaths due to cancer. It can be acute (sudden onset), sub-acute (slow onset), or chronic (long period) and multifactorial in origin.
Six site-specific cancers accounted for over one crore cancer cases reported in 2020
WHO had earlier projected that cancer rates may rise by at least 60% in the next two decades. In terms of the new cancer cases reported globally in 2020, the most common cancer was breast cancer. 22.6 lakh cases of breast cancer were reported followed by 22.1 lakh cases of lung cancer. About 19.3 lakh cases of colon and rectum cancer, 14.1 lakh cases of prostate cancer, 12 lakh cases of non-melanoma skin cancer and 10.9 lakh cases of stomach cancers were also reported. In other words, six site-specific cancers alone accounted for over one crore cancer cases reported in the year 2020 while according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, there are more than 600 types of cancer.
NCDIR-ICMR recently released a comprehensive report of anatomic site-wise cancers
Recently, the National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (NCDIR) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) released ‘Clinicopathological Profile of Cancers in India: A report of the Hospital Based Cancer Registries, 2021’. The report gives a comprehensive overview of the distribution of cancer cases in India based on data from participating hospitals and cancers in sites associated with tobacco use. Furthermore, a detailed anatomic site-wise clinical description for eight systems/specific organs, viz; cancers of head and neck, gastrointestinal tract, lungs, gynaecological and breast, prostate, kidney and urinary bladder, brain and nervous system, and thyroid cancers have been covered in the report. The data is intended to help understand the gravity of the disease in the country and aid in decision-making, policy formulation, research, and improving cancer care.
Cancer registries are maintained by countries and collate data on incidence, type, and mortality due to cancer in the country. In India, the National Cancer Registry Programme Report (NCRP) provides information on estimated incidence and mortality in India. For this report, data on cancer cases from 96 Hospital Based Cancer Registries under the National Cancer Registry Programme (NCRP) has been collected for the seven-year period from 2012 to 2019. The data pertains to all diagnosed and treated cases of confirmed malignancies reported to these centres across the country during this period.
13.9 lakh cases of Cancer are estimated in India in 2020
The report states that the estimate of cancer cases in the country is 13.9 lakhs as of 2020, up from 13.25 lakh cases in 2018. Projections suggest that the incidence of cases would increase by 13% to reach 15.7 lakh cases by 2025. For this report, the NCDIR considered only 6.1 lakh cases out of the total 13.3 lakh cancer cases that were registered in the 96 participating hospitals, due to the quality and completeness of the data.
The proportion of all cancer cases is higher in males & most due to Tobacco usage
The proportion of all cancer cases was higher in males with 3.19 lakh cases (52.4%) as compared to 2.9 lakh cases (47.4%) in females. This trend is evident in the cases of childhood cancers as well. Childhood cancers or incidence of cancers among children aged 0 to 14 years accounted for 4% of all cancers, which is around 24,268 cases. Leukaemia or blood cancer accounted for around 45% of all the childhood cancers in both genders in the said age group. Lymphoma accounted for 16.4% of childhood cancer in boys while malignant bone tumours accounted for 8.9% of cancers among girls. About 70% of childhood kidney cancer cases were reported in the 0-4 years age group. About 1 in 3 cancers in the brain and nervous systems were reported in the 5-9 years age group.
The data from the report indicates that most cases of cancer in India are due to tobacco usage. It is known that tobacco has high carcinogenicity with over 69 carcinogenic agents such as amines, hydrocarbons, aldehydes, etc.  According to the National Non-communicable Disease Monitoring Survey (NNMS) 2017-2018, close to one-third of adults between 18-69 years used either smoked or smokeless forms of tobacco, and 28% used tobacco daily.
Data indicates that Cancers in sites associated with tobacco use comprised 48.7% of cancers among males and 16.5% among females. Overall, 33.3% of the cancer cases analysed in the 2021 report, over 2 lakhs, were because of tobacco usage. On the other hand, a NCRP report from 2020 estimated that 27.1% of all cancer cases in India, amounting to 3.77 lakh cases, were due to tobacco usage. Further, the NCRP report from 2020 projected that the incidence would increase to 4.27 lakhs by 2025. The latest report has also made similar projections. Based on the tobacco use in 2021, it is estimated that by 2025 there would be 3.14 lakh cases in males and 1.14 lakh cases in females contributing to 27.2% of the projected cancer cases in India.
1 in 2 cancer cases in the Northeast is due to tobacco usage
Geographical distribution of the 6 lakh odd cases analysed in the 2021 report shows that more than 50% of the cancer cases in Northeast India were due to tobacco usage, followed by the West with 36.9% cases attributable to tobacco. The proportion was the lowest in the East with 25.3% cases attributable to tobacco. A total of 32.9% of the cases in North and 28.6% cases in the South were due to tobacco usage. However, in terms of the number of cases, the South had the highest incidence with close to 62,000 cases (30% of all tobacco-related cases) due to tobacco usage and the Central region had the lowest with over 11,400 cases. The number of cases in India attributable to tobacco usage is given in the following chart.
One-third of cancers in males were in the head & neck region while gynaecological & breast cancers account for half the cancers in females
The highest proportion of cancer from almost all sites were reported in the age group 45 to 64 years. The anatomic site-wise analysis reveals the following.
The report also noted that chemotherapy was the most typical treatment modality for many cancers, including cancers of the liver, gallbladder, stomach, lung, and childhood cancers. The report further notes that most cancer patients were initiated on cancer-directed treatment within 8 to 30 days of diagnosis.
Cancer burden can be reduced
According to the WHO, between 30% to 50% of cancers can be prevented by avoiding risk factors and implementing existing evidence-based prevention strategies. Some of the measures include limiting tobacco usage, encouraging an active lifestyle, and vaccination against the HPV virus. Early detection of cancer and appropriate treatment and care of patients who develop cancer could help reduce cancer burden as many cancers have high chances of curing provided it is detected and treated on time.

created: October 4, 2021


text:
Actual Expenditure of all the Departments under the Ministry of Science & Technology falls in the pandemic year of 2020-21
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
February 24, 2022
Data from the budget documents of 2022-23 indicates that the actual expenditure incurred by all the three departments viz., Department of Science (DST), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) under the Ministry of Science & Technology fell in the pandemic year of 2020-21, compared to 2019-20.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has reemphasized the importance of Scientific development and research. The development of COVID-19 vaccines and other measures to contain the pandemic was made possible with investments in scientific research & development by organizations and respective governments around the world. India is among the few countries which are at the forefront of developing & manufacturing COVID-19 vaccines.
Apart from the development of vaccines, technologies relating to clean & alternative energy, space, telecommunication, etc. are among those which shape the future and require significant investments in research & development.
In this story, we look at the budget allocation in recent years towards science research & development. We specifically analyse the allocation made for the– Department of Science (DST), Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR).
Fall in the actual expenditure of DST in 2020-21
The Budget allocation for the Ministry of Science & Technology for 2022-23 fell by around 3.9% compared to 2021-22. In 2022-23, Rs. 14.21 thousand crores were allocated compared to Rs. 14.97 thousand crores in 2021-22.
The Ministry of Science & Technology has three departments – the Department of Science & Technology (DST), the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR).
The budget allocation for DST fell from Rs. 6.07 thousand crores in 2021-22 to Rs.6 thousand crores in 2022-23. This is a continuation of a recent declining trend of budget allocation as the allocation for 2021-22 was in turn less than for 2020-21.
The data from earlier years indicates that the revised estimates and actual expenditure for DST were slightly lower than the initial budget estimates. But during the pandemic hit 2020-21, the revised estimates were much lower at Rs. 5 thousand cores compared to the budget allocation of Rs. 6.3 thousand crores. The actual expenditure of DST for 2020-21 was still lower at Rs.4.89 thousand crores i.e., around 77.6% of the budget allocation for the year. In the earlier years, the actual expenditure has been close to an average of 95 % of the budget estimates of the respective year. In fact, the Actual expenditure during 2020-21 is lower than during each of the previous two years of 2019-20 and 2018-19.
In 2020-21, the budget allocation for Central Sector Schemes/projects was Rs. 3.2 thousand crores. But the actual expenditure was only Rs. 2.18 thousand crores. The budget allocation in 2022-23 towards Central Sector Scheme/projects is Rs. 2.89 thousand crores, compared to Rs. 2.91 thousand crores in 2021-22.
The revised estimates for 2021-22 were reduced to Rs. 2.14 thousand crores towards Central sector schemes/projects. Going by the trends of the last two years, the actual spending could be lower than the revised estimates.
Further drill-down of the allocation reveals that the budget cut was under the heads of ‘Science & Technology Instructional & Human Capacity building’ and ‘Innovation, Technology Development & Deployment’. The impact of the pandemic on these cannot be ruled out.
Fall in actual expenditure towards ‘Biotechnology Research & Development’ in 2020-21
As per the budget documents for 2022-23, the actual expenditure of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) in 2020-21 was Rs. 2.26 thousand crores, compared to Rs. 2.36 thousand crores in 2019-20. This is lower than even the revised estimates for 2020-21, which was reduced to Rs. 2.3 thousand crores compared to budget estimates of Rs. 2.79 thousand crores, indicating a fall in spending during the pandemic.
For 2021-22, the budget estimates were increased to Rs. 3.5 thousand crores compared to Rs. 2.79 thousand crores for 2020-21. However, the revised estimates reduced this amount to Rs. 2.96 thousand crores.  As in the case of DST, the fall in the expenditure can be attributed to ‘Central sector schemes & projects’.
For 2021-22, the budget estimates were increased towards both ‘Biotechnology Research & Development’ and ‘Industrial & Entrepreneurship Development’.  In view of the pandemic, this was a welcome initiative. The budget estimates of ‘Biotechnology Research & Development’ in 2021-22 were Rs. 1.66 thousand crores compared to Rs. 1.58 thousand in 2020-21. The revised estimates for 2021-22 reduced this amount to Rs. 1.49 thousand crores.
The actual expenditure towards R&D in 2020-21 fell to Rs. 1.28 thousand compared Rs. 1.3 thousand crores in 2019-20.
A prominent increase in allocation was observed in the case of ‘Industrial & Entrepreneurship Development’, where-in the budget estimates were increased from Rs. 322 crores in 2020-21 to Rs. 960 crores in 2021-22. This is, however, reduced to Rs. 365 crores in 2022-23. The actual expenditure towards this head increased from Rs. 230.6 crores in 2019-20 to Rs. 340.9 crores in 2020-21.
Around 14% decline in the actual expenditure of DSIR
The third department in the Ministry of Science & Technology is the Department of Science & Industrial Research (DISR). The budget estimates for this department have increased year-on-year except for 2021-22. With the impact of the pandemic, the budget estimates for 2021-22 and revised estimates for 2020-21 were lower than previous years.
Particularly, the revised estimates for 2020-21 were reduced to Rs. 4.25 thousand crores compared to the initial budget estimate of Rs. 5.39 thousand crores. The pandemic also had an impact on the actual expenditure. As per the information provided in the Budget for 2022-23, the actual expenditure in this department in 2020-21 was Rs. 4.2 thousand crores. This is much lower than the actual expenditure for 2019-20 which was Rs. 4.87 thousand crores. In fact, the actual expenditure of DSIR in 2020-21 is the lowest since 2017-18.
However, the revised estimates for 2021-22 were increased to Rs. 5.3 thousand crores compared to the budget estimates of Rs. 5.22 thousand crores. On the other hand, the budget estimates for 2022-23 are Rs. 5.64 thousand crores.
A major portion of the Department’s expenditure is booked under ‘Other Central Sector expenditure’, which is the expenditure for the running of various national laboratories under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The actuals under this head reduced from Rs. 4.83 thousand crores in 2019-20 to Rs. 4.16 thousand crores in 2020-21.
Among the expenditure related to central sector schemes for this department are ‘Industrial Research & Development’ and ‘Assistance to PSEs for other Scientific Research Schemes’. The actual expenditure towards ‘Industrial Research & Development’ increased from Rs. 6.84 crores in 2019-20 to Rs. 12.55 crores in 2020-21. However, this is lower than the budget estimates for 2020-21, which was Rs. 30.6 crores. Meanwhile, the actual expenditure towards assistance to PSEs fell from Rs. 19.2 crores in 2019-20 to Rs. 9.38 crores in 2020-21.
Actual Expenditure of the Ministry fell in 2020-21 with an increase in budget estimates for later years
The trend observed across all the three departments of the Ministry of Science & Technology is the fall in actual expenditure incurred during the pandemic hit 2020-21. This could be because of other priorities during the pandemic relating to financial support and rehabilitation.
While the budget estimates increased for 2021-22, the revised estimates in the case of DST & DBT were lower than the budget estimates for 2021-22.
In a response provided in Rajya Sabha in August 2021, the government updated that it has allocated Rs. 1.3 thousand crores to DBT’s Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) towards COVID-19 Research and Production Development.
The Department of Science & Technology (DST) has earmarked around Rs. 200 crores for COVID-19 related research & implementation.
Featured Image: Actual Expenditure of Ministry of Science & Technology Departments

created: February 24, 2022


text:
Actual Expenditure of the ‘Environment’ ministry only 63% of budget estimates in the pandemic year of 2020-21
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
March 7, 2022
Like with most other ministries, the actual expenditure of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change reduced significantly in 2020-21. The actual expenditure in 2020-21 for MoEFCC was only 63% of the initial budget estimates. Trends indicate that the actual expenditure in 2021-22 could also be lower than the initial estimates.
At the COP-26 summit held in Glasgow in November 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to cut  India’s total projected carbon emissions by one billion tonnes from now till 2030. India also committed to reducing the carbon intensity of the nation’s economy by more than 45% by the end of the current decade and achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2070.
The programs & projects of the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (MoEFCC) are critical to achieving these commitments.  In this story, we look at the trends in budget allocation & expenditure of the MoEFCC.
Actual Expenditure in 2020-21 was only 63% of the Budget Estimates for the year
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the budget estimates for MOEFCC increased over the years. In 2016-17, the budget estimates were Rs. 2.25 thousand crores, which increased to Rs. 3.1 thousand crores by 2020-21. However, in the ensuing years starting 2021-22, the allocation was reduced to Rs. 2.86 thousand crores in 2021-22 and Rs. 3.03 thousand crores in 2022-23.
Like with most other ministries, the actual expenditure of the ministry in 2020-21 was affected by the pandemic. Prior to that, the actual expenditure as a share of the budget estimates was higher. In 2016-17, the actual expenditure was Rs. 2.27 thousand crores, 101% of the budget estimates and around 98% of the revised estimates for the year. During 2019-20, the actual expenditure of the ministry was Rs. 2.53 thousand crores, only around 86% of the budget estimates and around 95.5% of the revised estimates. Compared to the previous years, the revised estimates were much lower than the budget estimates in 2019-20.
The fall in the actual expenditure is more prominent in 2020-21, which was only 63% of the budget estimates for the year. The budget estimates for the year were Rs. 3.1 thousand crores, which was revised to Rs. 2.01 thousand crores because of the pandemic and the actual expenditure was still lower at Rs. 1.97 thousand crores.
The revised estimates for 2021-22 were Rs. 2.52 thousand crores, lower than the budget estimates of Rs. 2.87 thousand crores. However, the government has increased the budget estimates for 2022-23 to Rs. 3.03 thousand crores. It remains to be seen if the revised estimates & actual expenditure get back to the pre-pandemic levels.
Actual expenditure on Central Sector & Centrally Sponsored schemes most affected during 2020-21
The fall in the actual expenditure in 2020-21, is primarily due to the reduction in the actual expenditure across various central sector schemes and centrally sponsored schemes.   There has been a fall in the expenditure across all different heads.
Actual expenditure for Ecology & Environment in 2020-21 is only 77% of 2019-20
Among the major expenditure heads under MoEFCC, major spending is done is under ‘Ecology & Environment’. The actual expenditure under this head in 2019-20 was Rs. 1.04 thousand crores. The budget estimates for 2020-21 was Rs. 1.27 thousand crores, but with the pandemic, it was revised to Rs. 787.86 crores. As per the information in the latest budget, the actual expenditure for 2020-21 was only Rs. 803.52 crores.  Similarly, the actual expenditure under ‘Forestry & Wildlife’ related services in 2020-21 were Rs. 475.45 crores compared to Rs. 672.12 crores of budget estimates.
This reduction is also reflected in the actual expenditure under major schemes in 2020-21.
Fall in the Actual Expenditure across various schemes in 2020-21 with a similar trend continuing in 2021-22
As the data indicates, most of the major schemes and projects under the MoEFCC have witnessed reduced expenditure in 2020-21 compared to both the budget estimates and the actual expenditure in 2019-20.
In 2021-22, the budget estimates were at par with the earlier years but were reduced & revised later. The trend of lower actual expenditure could continue even in 2021-22 as was the case in 2019-20.
The Ministry highlighted the progress made under various initiatives in its year-end statement for 2021. As per the Ministry’s statement,
While the reduced expenditure because of the pandemic is understandable, it could significantly impact India’s progress towards meeting its environmental and climate change objectives if amends are not made soon.
Featured Image: Actual Expenditure of the ‘Environment’ ministry


text:
Data: Actual Revenue Receipts of some states matched their budget estimates in 2021-22
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 11, 2022
Data available with the CAG in the form of ‘Monthly Key Indicators’ indicates that while some states managed to surpass their budget estimates for revenue receipts in 2021-22, some states did not. There is no single uniform reason for this trend.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy is apparent in the emerging data from the pandemic period. A fall in government revenues along with the additional expenditure of managing the pandemic has resulted in increased financial stress for the governments.
In an earlier story, we reported the fall in the tax revenues of the Union government. We also highlighted that there is an increasing trend of State governments resorting to borrowings and advances to tide over the pandemic-induced financial stress.
The financial year of 2021-22 marked a recovery compared to the pandemic that hit 2020-21. Although India experienced a more severe second wave of the pandemic in the early part of 2021-22, the restrictions & lockdowns were better managed than the first wave, with a comparatively lesser impact on economic activity.
But how was the recovery in 2021-22? In this two-part series, we look at the revenue earnings of the States during 2021-22, to understand the recovery compared to 2020-21. In the first part, we look at the states who have actual revenue receipts that were more than 95% of their budget estimates for 2021-22.
Methodology: The data submitted by the states & as available on the website of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) is considered for the analysis. The data is collated from the ‘Monthly Key Indicators’ report of the respective states as of March 2022 i.e., the end of the financial year 2021-22. Revenue Receipts of the States are used for the analysis. Revenue Receipts include – Tax Revenue, Non-Tax revenue and any Grant-in-aid & contributions received.  The Tax revenues of the states include – GST, Land revenue, Sales Tax, State excise duties, State share in Union taxes & other taxes. The states are categorized based on the proportion of Actual Revenue receipts compared to the budget estimates.
Odisha, Karnataka & Madhya Pradesh have significantly higher actual receipts than the estimates in 2021-22
Five states have reported actual revenue receipts to be more than the budget estimates in 2021-22. Here is a snapshot.
Tax Revenue in 2021-22 was Rs.78.89 thousand as against the estimate of Rs. 67.63 thousand crores. There was a significant increase in non-tax revenue which resulted in an overall increase in revenue receipts. As against the budget estimates of Rs. 20,000 crores of non-tax revenue, the actual receipts were more than Rs. 54 thousand crores. However, the actual breakup of the non-tax revenue was not available to ascertain the reasons for such an increase.
Gujarat, Rajasthan & West Bengal are among the states whose actuals nearly matched the estimates
Gujarat & Himachal Pradesh fell short of their estimates for 2021-22, but only by a smaller margin. Meanwhile, the actual revenue receipts of Rajasthan, West Bengal & Uttarakhand for 2021-22 are more than 95% of the estimates. Here is a snapshot of these states:
In the second part, we will look at the states whose actual revenue receipts were less than 95% of the estimates for 2021-22.


text:
Data: Actual Tax Revenues of 15 States including 6 Northeastern states were more than 90% of the estimates between 2017-18 & 2021-22
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
July 15, 2022
Budget estimates are an important of planning for various initiatives in the year ahead. A huge shortfall in actuals compared to the estimates hampers those plans. Data from 2017-18 to 2021-22 indicates that Actual Tax Revenues of 15 States including 6 Northeastern states were more than 90% of the estimates.
Taxes form a major component of the revenues earned by the governments. In the earlier stories, we analysed the trends in the revenue receipts of the States in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data from few states indicates that non-tax revenue and grants-in-aid came to the rescue despite lower than estimated tax revenues. However, the revenues from these sources are not recurring & guaranteed revenues unlike the tax revenues earned by the states.  Being the regular source of revenue, tax revenues also present a reliable picture on the economic situation of the respective states, since the taxes are levied on a multitude of economic activities.
In this story, we analyse the trends in tax revenues of the states over the past five years i.e., from 2017-18 to 2021-22, to ascertain the situation prior to, during and post the pandemic.
Methodology: ‘Accounts at Glance’ reports submitted by the respective states to the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) are considered for analysis. These reports are for the four-year period 2017-18 to 2020-21. For the recently ended 2021-22, we have considered the data from ‘Monthly Key Indicators’.  For those states where the ‘Accounts at Glance’ reports were not available for a particular year, ‘Monthly Key Indicators’ reports were considered.  Tax Revenue includes the revenue earned by the states directly through various taxes i.e., States own Tax Revenue and their share of Union Taxes. Thus, Tax Revenues include – GST, Sales Tax, Excise Duties, Land Revenues, Stamps & Registrations Fees, Other Taxes & duties along with State’s share of Union Taxes.
For the purpose of categorization, the cumulative tax revenues (Budges estimates & Actuals) are calculated for five years i.e., 2017-18 to 2021-22. The States are then categorised based on the percentage of cumulative actuals earned vs. the cumulative budget estimates for these five years. A yearly analysis is also done to understand the trends.
Actual Tax Revenue of Madhya Pradesh exceeded its estimates during the pandemic.
If the cumulative tax earnings over the past five years are considered, three states in India have managed to have earn at more than 95% of their budget estimates. Even among these three states, Madhya Pradesh stands out by being the only state with actual tax revenue exceeding the estimates.
While the general trend at national level and across the states during the pandemic was a shortfall in the tax revenues compared to estimates, Madhya Pradesh has managed to earn more than its estimates. During 2019-20, the actuals were 101% of estimates. During the pandemic hit 2020-21, the estimates were slightly lower than previous year. The actual collection in 2020-21 was 105% of the estimates. In 2021-22, despite a higher estimate, the actuals were 116% of the estimates. State’s share of Union taxes is the major contributor towards the overall tax revenue earned by the state in 2021-22. It is 133% compared to the estimates. Trends in recent years show a higher proportionate increase in ‘State’s Own Tax Revenue’ (SOTR) compared to the revenue it receives as its share of Union taxes.
Odisha and Himachal Pradesh are the other two states with more than 95% of actual tax revenues compared to the estimates during these five years. Odisha’s actual tax revenues were more than its estimates prior to 2019-20. During 2019-20 and 2020-21, the actuals were only 87% & 83% of the estimates. In 2021-22, the tax revenues are 116% of the estimates. While its share of union taxes was a contributor to this, the SOTR of Odisha during the year was also higher than its estimates for the year, especially in case of GST & Sales Tax. These were lower during the pandemic. In the case of Himachal Pradesh, which comparably has lower volume of tax revenues, the actuals more than the estimates during and post pandemic, as in case of Madhya Pradesh.
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu among the higher earning states whose actual tax collections were affected during the pandemic
There are 6 states whose actual cumulative tax revenues were between 90-95% during the five-year period (2017-18 to 2021-22). While the amount of tax revenues varies from state to state, a common trend observed is that these states have a higher ratio of actual earnings compared to the estimates but were affected during the pandemic year of 2020-21.
Maharashtra, one of the leading states with highest tax collections managed actuals at 107% of the estimates in 2017-18. In the ensuing year, it was around 99%. The impact of pandemic was visible in the next two years, with actuals only around 87.5% and 73.5% in 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively. In 2021-22, the actual amount of tax collections improved and were around 96.4% of the estimates for the year. Its share of Union taxes being a major contributor to the increase in 2021-22. The state which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases and impact had a fall in its SOTR during the pandemic from which it is to yet to fully recover.
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu & West Bengal are the other higher tax earners in terms of volume, which witnessed a similar trend. The tax revenues in these states were more than 95% of the estimates prior to the pandemic. The actuals fell to less than 80% of the estimates during the pandemic. The actual tax revenues in all these states exceeded estimates in 2021-22. Another common trend that observed in these states is a lesser variance in the yearly estimates despite the pandemic.
A similar trend is observed in case of Telangana, where an improving trend in the actual earnings was affected by the pandemic. In 2020-21, the state’s actual tax earnings were only 77% of its estimates. The actuals in 2021-22, not only increased in volume but are also higher than the estimates for the year.
For most of the states, pandemic has further affected their inconsistent actual tax revenues
COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly all the states. While for most, the estimates remained nearly the same, the lower actual earnings have resulted in shortfall of their estimated revenues.
In the states discussed above, the shortfall in the tax revenues due the impact of pandemic was mitigated to an extant due to the better performance pre-pandemic and a faster recovery in 2021-22.
However, those states which had lower actual tax revenues compared to their own estimates even prior to the pandemic, have had to face a further shortfall due to the pandemic. Nine large states have their cumulative tax receipts at less than 90% of their estimates. A common trend among them is the inconsistent and lower tax earnings even prior to the pandemic.
Gujarat was among the most impacted during the pandemic, with its actual tax receipts only at 80% & 67% of the estimates in 2019-20 & 2020-21. Its tax receipts were above 90% of estimates during the non-pandemic years.
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, etc. are among the other states whose actuals were more than 90% of the estimates but fell to less than 90% due to the pandemic. These states have shown better actuals to estimates ratio in 2021-22.
On the other hand, Punjab & Assam reported inconsistent and lower tax receipts compared to the estimates even prior to the pandemic. The situation went further south due the pandemic. An improvement is observed in 2021-22, especially due to increase in the share of union taxes received by these two states.
Major fall in tax revenues during the pandemic severely affected Kerala
Among the large states, both Kerala & Jharkhand have the actual cumulative tax revenue during 2017-18 to 2021-22 at less than 85% of their budget estimates. The tax revenues of Kerala were just about 90% of their estimates prior to the pandemic. The short fall increased further with actuals at 75% and 63% in 2019-20 and 2020-21 respectively. Even in 2021-22, the actual tax revenue was only about 89% of the estimates. GST collection has been lower in Kerala during these years. Though the state’s share of union taxes were 150% of the estimates in 2021-22, the overall actuals did not cross 90% in 2021-22.  Even Jharkhand is characterised by lower actual tax revenues compared to the estimates, even prior to the pandemic.
Except for Manipur, Tax Revenues of most Northeastern States are more than 90% of estimates
The quantum of tax revenues of Northeastern States excluding Assam) are generally lower than the other states because these states are smaller in comparison. However, these states have better tax estimate realization with the cumulative actual tax revenues of all these states at more than 90% of the estimates with Manipur being the only exception. But even in case of Manipur, it is the major shortfall in 2020-21, that has affected the overall figures.  The actual tax revenue in 2020-21 was only 35% of its estimates.
While pandemic’s impact cannot be discounted, more prudent estimates can help the states plan better
As the data suggests, the impact of the pandemic on various states’ tax collections cannot be denied. Except for a couple of states, there has been a shortfall in the tax revenues for most of the states during the pandemic hit 2019-20 and 2020-21, compared to their estimates.
The higher actuals in the case of state’s share of union taxes compared to estimates, for most of the states contributed to the reduction in shortfall of actual tax revenues for many states.  While the economy is on the path of recovery as visible from the higher tax revenues in 2020-21, more prudent estimates of tax revenues can help the states plan better.
Featured Image: Actual Tax Revenues of States


text:
After 20 years,50% of Universal Service Obligation Fund remains unutilized
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
August 16, 2021
The Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) was established in 2002 to fund the extension of telecom services to commercially unviable rural and remote areas of the country. In the last 20 years since its introduction, more than Rs. 1.17 lakh crores have been collected of which more than Rs. 59000 crores only have been disbursed, leaving almost 50% of the fund unutilized.
Information & Communication Technology (ICT) has permeated into all aspects of life by providing novel and faster ways of delivering & accessing information and providing services. Changes in social, political, and economic relations in modern society have been witnessed because of the advent of ICT. What was once a facility has now become a necessity. Life without ICT has become unimaginable, especially post-pandemic as most institutions have resorted to ICT to deliver their services. Doctor consultations, education, and even judicial proceedings went online because of COVID-19.
For many years now, the Indian government had rolled out several schemes for the expansion of telecom services in rural and remote areas of the country such as the BharatNet project, Comprehensive Telecom Development Plan for the North-Eastern Region, and LWE scheme. The Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) was established in 2002 to provide financial support for the provision of telecom services in commercially unviable rural and remote areas of the country. With the vision to provide affordable access to reliable and ubiquitous telecommunications networks to all rural Indians, the USOF was established. The scope of USOF covers all telecom services including mobile services, broadband connectivity, and the creation of infrastructure like Optical Fiber Cable (OFC), etc. in rural and remote areas.
Many Countries have formulated policies to ensure ‘Universal Access’ to ICT
ICT services are not available in some areas due to commercial non-viability because of sparse population, remoteness of areas, insurgency, difficult terrain, unavailability of supporting infrastructure like roads, and low income of persons. In rural and remote areas, not only is the capital cost high for providing telecom services, but the revenue generated is also low due to lower population density, and lack of commercial activities. Since normal market forces alone are inadequate to serve these areas, many countries formulated policies to provide Universal Access and Universal Service to ICT. The USOF is one such mechanism that extends support through subsidies and incentivizing telecom service providers in such areas.
USOF was given statutory status in 2003
The New Telecom Policy of 1999 had ‘Universal Service’ as one of its main objectives. The idea was to strike a balance between the provision of Universal Service to all uncovered areas, including the rural areas, and the provision of high-level services capable of meeting the needs of the country’s economy. The resources for meeting the Universal Service Obligation (USO) were to be generated through a Universal Access Levy (UAL), at a prescribed percentage of the revenue earned by the telecom licensees to be decided in consultation with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Act, 2003 gave statutory status to USOF.
USOF funds are being used for many schemes
Several schemes have been taken up with funding from USOF for the expansion of telecom services in rural and remote areas of the country. The implementation of the USOF schemes is carried out through the Service Providers after entering into specific contracts. Some of the schemes funded under USOF are
The sums of money received towards USOF are first credited to Consolidated Fund of India and the Central Government may, with the approval of parliament, credit such proceeds to the fund from time to time for being utilized exclusively for meeting USO. As per the Department of Telecommunications, there have been 24 partners in USOF schemes including BSNL, Reliance Communications Limited, Vodafone, Bharti Airtel Limited, etc.
More than 1 lakh crore rupees has been collected under USOF
As of 31 May 2021, a total of Rs. 1,17,453 crores have been collected as UAL under the USOF. Since the constitution of USOF, the collection of UAL was the highest in 2015-16 with Rs. 9,836 crores. In the first year i.e., 2002-03, the UAL collection was Rs. 1,654 crores, and crossed Rs. 3,000 crores for the first time in 2004-05, crossed the Rs. 5000 crore mark in 2007-08, and crossed the Rs. 7000 crore mark in 2013-14. From 2015-16 onwards, an average of about Rs. 8,500 crores was collected annually. Two months into the financial year 2021-22, Rs. 372.79 crores have been collected as of 31 May 2021.
50% of funds under USOF remain unutilized
As of 31 May 2021, a total of Rs. 59,369 crores only have been disbursed under USOF. This is about 50.5% of the total amount collected under USOF so far. About Rs. 58,083 crores are the balance fund available for utilization as the fund does not lapse at the end of the year. In 2021-22, in the first two months, about Rs. 145.7 crores have been disbursed.
In the first two years since the introduction of USOF i.e., 2002-03 and 2003-04, the disbursement under USOF was Rs. 300 crores and Rs. 200 crores respectively. Since then, the disbursement has gradually increased, though not consistent. Disbursement of Rs. 8549 crores were made in 2008-09, the highest disbursement in the financial year till date. The high amount in 2008-09 was due to the release of reimbursement of the license fees and spectrum charges to BSNL, amounting to Rs. 6949 crores over the period 2002-03 to 2005-06, for fulfilling the rural obligation. Disbursement under USOF was about Rs. 7,200 crores each in 2016-17 and 2020-21, and close to Rs. 7,000 Crores in 2017-18.
Nearly 47% of disbursement for the National Optical Fibre Network project
Of the total Rs. 59,369.19 crores that have been disbursed under USOF in the 19 years, nearly 47% of the disbursement, about Rs. 28,000 crores have been released for the National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN) project under the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). Another 27% of the funds, about Rs.16,288 crores, have been disbursed to DoT. More than Rs. 2,000 crores were given for the Left Wing Extremism (LWE) project under DoT and more than Rs. 1,000 crores each was allocated to the states of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. Including the disbursement made to the telecom circles of Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, UP (East), Gujarat, Jharkhand, Bihar, and Odisha which got more than 1% each, the disbursement made to the said circles accounted for more than 93% of the disbursement made so far.
Non-utilization of the fund has been highlighted by CAG multiple times
The data clearly indicates that only about half the funds under USOF have been disbursed so far. The issue of the short transfer of the levy to the USO Fund has been highlighted by the CAG in its successive reports.
Currently, the License Fee to be collected from commercial telecom licensees is 8% of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), inclusive of USO Levy which is presently 5% of AGR. There have been multiple instances requesting a deduction of the USO levy on telecom operators be cut by 2 percentage points to 3% considering the poor utilization of funds. Even the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) wrote to TRAI asking for a reduction in the fee collected.
Featured Image: Universal Service Obligation Fund