The presentation of the Annual Budget before the parliament is one of the mechanisms available to any legislature to scrutinise and authorise revenues and expenditures of the country. In this post I quote and summarise from two sources (Rick Stapenhurst, "The legislature and the Budget", in Legislative Oversight and Budgeting, World Bank Institute Development Studies, and The evolution of parliament’s power of the purse) which describe briefly how oversight by the legislature over the state's finances evolved historically. "The evolution of legislative "power of the purse" dates back to medieval times, when knights and burgesses in England were summoned to confirm the assent of local communities to the raising of additional taxes." By the 1300s the English parliament had begun to use its power to vote on funds depending on the acceptance of petitions presented by parliament to the monarch. In 1341, the monarch agreed that citizens should not be taxed ("charged or grieved to make common aid or sustain charge") without the assent of Parliament. "In parallel, the English Parliament began to take an interest in how money was collected, as well as how it was spent." In the 1300's itself, it started appointing commissioners to audit the accounts of tax collectors. This power of oversight however evolved gradually, and particularly over the 16th century, when the "monarchs needed parliamentary support and voting of funds for their various political and religious battles. King Henry VIII for example, gave Parliament enhanced status in policy making, in return for support during his battles with Rome." The 1689 Bill of Rights firmly established "the principle that only Parliament could authorize taxation. Still, at this stage there was still no such thing as an annual budget, and there was no comprehensive control of expenditures." The British Parliament also passed a resolution in 1713 to limit Parliament's power to "not vote sums in excess of the Government’s estimates. Consequently, the only amendments that are in order are those which aim to reduce the sums requested." "Since that time, the "power of the purse" function has been performed by legislatures around the world as a means to expand their democratic leverage on behalf of citizens."
On November 28, 2012, the Comptroller and Auditor General submitted its report on the implementation of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). According to the report most of the projects initiated under JNNURM have not been completed. For instance with respect to urban infrastructure projects, only 231 projects out of the 1298 sanctioned projects have been completed. Similarly, with respect to housing projects, only 22 of the 1517 projects have been completed. Some of the other key recommendations of the report are:
The need and objectives of JNNURM According to the 2011 census India’s urban population has increased from 286 million in 2001 to 377 million in 2011 . With the increase in urban population, there is a requirement to improve the urban infrastructure and improve the service delivery mechanisms. With these specific objectives in mind, the central government launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission 2005-2006. The aim of the Mission is to encourage reforms and fast track planned development of identified cities (such as cities with a population of more than 1 million as per the 2001 census). JNNURM has two main components namely : (i) Urban Infrastructure and Governance and (ii) Urban Infrastructure Development for Small and Medium Towns. The duration of JNNURM was from 2005-06 to 2011-12. However, as the projects have not been completed the Government has extended its duration until March 2014. Funds for JNNURM The funds for JNNURM are provided through the Additional Central Assistance. This implies that the funds are provided as grants to the states directly from the centre. In the 2012 Union Budget, the central government has allocated Rs 12,522 crore for JNNURM. This represents around 10 % of the total central assistance through the different schemes to states and union territories in 2012-13. As on June 30 2012, 554 projects at a total cost of Rs 62,253 crore have been sanctioned under the Urban Infrastructure and Governance sub-mission of JNNURM. The table below shows the status of the sanctioned JNNURM projects in the different states. State wise status of the projects under JNNURM (as on August 6, 2012)
| Name of State | Total Allocation (Rs Lakh) | Number of sanctioned projects | Completed Projects |
| Andhra Pradesh | 2,11,845 | 52 | 18 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 10,740 | 3 | NA |
| Assam | 27,320 | 2 | NA |
| Bihar | 59,241 | 8 | NA |
| Chandigarh | 27,087 | 3 | NA |
| Chattisgarh | 24,803 | 1 | NA |
| Delhi | 2,82,318 | 23 | 4 |
| Goa | 12,094 | 2 | NA |
| Gujarat | 2,57,881 | 72 | 40 |
| Haryana | 32,332 | 4 | NA |
| Himachal Pradesh | 13,066 | 5 | NA |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 48,836 | 5 | NA |
| Jharkhand | 94,120 | 5 | NA |
| Karnataka | 1,52,459 | 47 | 22 |
| Kerala | 67,476 | 11 | NA |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1,32,850 | 23 | 7 |
| Maharashtra | 5,50,555 | 80 | 21 |
| Manipur | 15,287 | 3 | NA |
| Meghalaya | 15,668 | 2 | NA |
| Mizoram | 14,822 | 4 | NA |
| Nagaland | 11,628 | 3 | NA |
| Orissa | 32,235 | 5 | NA |
| Punjab | 70,775 | 6 | 1 |
| Puducherry | 20,680 | 2 | NA |
| Rajasthan | 74,869 | 13 | 2 |
| Sikkim | 10,613 | 2 | NA |
| Tamil Nadu | 2,25,066 | 48 | 12 |
| Tripura | 14,018 | 2 | NA |
| Uttar Pradesh | 2,76,941 | 33 | 4 |
| Uttarakhand | 40,534 | 14 | NA |
| West Bengal | 3,21,840 | 69 | 15 |
Source: Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission; PRS.
