Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified when applications open.
By Rohit & Anirudh A modified 'Modernization of State Police Forces' scheme was started by the central government in 2000-01. One of the objectives was to help police forces in meeting the emerging challenges to internal security in the form of terrorism, naxalism etc. The scheme aims to modernize police forces in terms of:
Under this scheme, States have been clubbed into different categories and Centre-State cost sharing is category specific. Since 2005-06, States have been categorized as category ‘A’ and ‘B’ with 100% and 75% Central funding respectively. All the North Eastern States, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim have been placed in category ‘A’ and thus, are entitled to receive 100% Central assistance for implementation of their annual approved plans. Recently, CAG decided to evaluate the working of the scheme and commissioned ‘performance audit’ reviews covering select general category and special category States. Each review covers a contiguous five year period between 2000 and 2007, but varies across selected states. For the periods under review, each state had a plan outlay (the total amount proposed to be spent in modernizing the state's police forces). However, in most cases, the actual release of funds fell significantly short of this outlay - in some cases the Centre did not contribute its share, in others the States lagged behind. For instance, in the case of Bihar, the Centre released only 56% of its share; while in the case of Rajasthan and West Bengal, the States did not release any funds at all. The graph below shows the actual releases by the Centre and the States (as percentages of their share in the proposed outlays): 
Further, even the funds that were released were not fully utilized. Thus, the amount finally spent fell significantly short of the initial proposal. The graph below shows the actual expenditure by State: 
Following are some of the other main findings from the CAG report:
|
Table 1: Summary of main findings in the CAG audit for different states for Modernisation of State Police Forces |
|
|
Purpose for which money was sanctioned |
Summary of CAG Findings |
|
Planning (Every state has to propose an Annual Action Plan every year. The plan is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and money is released as per the plan.) |
§ Submissions by the states to the MHA were delayed. § There were also delays in the clearance granted by the MHA. § In various states such as, a) Andhra Pradesh – the government spent money on works not covered by the Annual Action Plan. b) Bihar – Persistent delays in preparation of the Plan by the state police. c) West Bengal – the plans drawn up by the state did not include items covered under the scheme. |
|
Mobility |
§ Overall shortage of vehicles was observed. Most of the new vehicles replaced the old ones. § The police response time was too long in some states. § To give examples from some states: a) Andhra Pradesh – 58 percent of vehicles procured were utilised for replacing old vehicles. b) Bihar – the shortage of vehicles was 43 percent. c) Uttar Pradesh – 2400 vehicles were procured against a shortage of nearly 10,000 vehicles. |
|
Residential and non-residential buildings |
§ There were considerable delays in construction of buildings in most states. Consequently, police forces’ own security was in jeopardy. § In states such as: a) Andhra Pradesh – 53 percent of staff quarters and 43 percent of official buildings were not completed (2007). b) Bihar – The total requirement of housing was nearly 60,000. Only six percent of this were included in the Plan. c) Jharkhand – District Control rooms remained non-functional because of shortage of manpower. |
|
Weapons |
§ Police force in states continue to depend on outdated weapons. § Shortages of weapons also happened as acquisition from ordnance factories was very slow. § The weapons that were procured were mostly kept in the district headquarters. § In some states such as, a) Bihar – AK-47s were kept at the disposal of bodyguards of VIPs. b) West Bengal – Adequate weapons were not supplied to extremist prone police stations. |
|
Communication |
§ Police Telecommunication Networks were not set up successfully in some states. In others, network was functional only up to the district level. § Shortages of various communication equipments were also observed. § In some states such as, a) Bihar - The Police Telecommunication Network system (costing Rs. 4.96 crore) remained non-functional due to non-construction of tower. b) Maharashtra – Of the 850 purchased Remote Station Units, 452 were lying in stores. |
|
Forensic Science Laboratory/ Finger Printing Bureau |
§ In most States the Forensic Science Laboratories lacked adequate infrastructure. § In the absence of automatic finger print identification systems, investigation was being done manually in some States. § In some states such as, a) Maharashtra - There were significant delays in receipt and installation. There was also shortage (284 vacant posts) of technical manpower. b) West Bengal - Performance of the Forensic Science Laboratory was poor and in some cases, the delay in issue of investigation reports was as high as 45 months. |
|
Training |
§ It was observed that the percentage of police personnel trained was very low. § Training infrastructure was also inadequate. § In some states such as, a) Bihar - Only 10 per cent of total force was trained. b) West Bengal - Live training was not imparted for handling useful weapons and this severely affected the performance of police forces. |
|
Sources: CAG Compendium of Performance Audit Reviews on Modernisation of Police Force; PRS. Note: The audit has been done broadly from 2000 to 2007. Consequently, the period of audit for different states may vary. |
|
|
Table 1: Summary of main findings in the CAG audit for different states for Modernisation of State Police Forces |
|
|
Purpose for which money was sanctioned |
Summary of CAG Findings |
|
Planning (Every state has to propose an Annual Action Plan every year. The plan is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and money is released as per the plan.) |
§ Submissions by the states to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) were delayed. § There were also delays in the clearance granted by the MHA. § In various states such as, a) Andhra Pradesh – the government spent Rs 32 crore on works not covered by the Annual Action Plan. b) Bihar – Persistent delays in preparation of the Plan by the state police. c) West Bengal – the plans drawn up by the state did not include items covered under the scheme. |
|
Mobility |
§ Overall shortage of vehicles was observed. Most of the new vehicles replaced the old ones, and no additions were made. § The police response time was too long in some states. § To give examples from some states: a) Andhra Pradesh – 58 percent of vehicles procured were utilised for replacing old vehicles. b) Bihar – the shortage of vehicles was 43 percent. c) Uttar Pradesh – 2400 vehicles were procured against a shortage of nearly 10,000 vehicles. 203 ambassador cars were procured, though only 55 were approved by the MHA. |
|
Residential and non-residential buildings |
§ There were considerable delays in construction of buildings in most states. Consequently, police forces’ own security was in jeopardy. Satisfaction levels with the housing provided were also very low. § In states such as: a) Andhra Pradesh – 53 percent of staff quarters and 43 percent of official buildings were not completed (2007). b) Bihar – The total requirement of housing was nearly 60,000. Only six percent of this were included in the Plan, and only 1045 units were completed by 2006. c) Jharkhand – District Control rooms remained non-functional even after spending Rs 2 crore because of shortage of manpower. |
|
Weapons |
§ It was observed that the police force in states continue to depend on outdated weapons. § Shortages of weapons also happened as acquisition from ordnance factories was very slow. § The weapons that were procured were mostly kept in the district headquarters. § In some states such as, a) Bihar – AK-47s were kept at the disposal of bodyguards of VIPs. b) West Bengal – Adequate weapons were not supplied to extremist prone police stations. |
|
Communication |
§ Police Telecommunication Networks were not set up successfully in some states. In others, network was functional only up to the district level. § Shortages of various communication equipments were also observed. § In some states such as, a) Bihar - The Police Telecommunication Network system (costing Rs. 4.96 crore) remained non-functional due to non-construction of tower. b) Maharashtra – Of the 850 purchased Remote Station Units, 452 were lying in stores. |
|
Forensic Science Laboratory/ Finger Printing Bureau |
§ In most States the Forensic Science Laboratories lacked adequate infrastructure. § In the absence of automatic finger print identification systems, investigation was being done manually in some States. § In some states such as, a) Maharashtra - There were significant delays in receipt and installation. There was also shortage (284 vacant posts) of technical manpower. b) West Bengal - Performance of the Forensic Science Laboratory was poor and in some cases, the delay in issue of investigation reports was as high as 45 months. |
|
Training |
§ It was observed that the percentage of police personnel trained was very low. § Training infrastructure was also inadequate. § In some states such as, a) Bihar - Only 10 per cent of total force was trained. b) West Bengal - Live training was not imparted for handling useful weapons and this severely affected the performance of police forces. |
|
Sources: CAG Compendium of Performance Audit Reviews on Modernisation of Police Force; PRS. Note: The audit has been done broadly from 2000 to 2007. Consequently, the period of audit for different states may vary. |
|
The Finance Minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, presented the Union Budget for the financial year 2019-20 in Parliament on July 5, 2019. In the 2019-20 budget, the government presented the estimates of its expenditure and receipts for the year 2019-20. The budget also gave an account of how much money the government raised or spent in 2017-18. In addition, the budget also presented the revised estimates made by the government for the year 2018-19 in comparison to the estimates it had given to Parliament in the previous year’s budget.
What are revised estimates?
Some of the estimates made by the government might change during the course of the year. For instance, once the year gets underway, some ministries may need more funds than what was actually allocated to them in the budget, or the receipts expected from certain sources might change. Such deviations from the budget estimates get reflected in the figures released by the government at later stages as part of the subsequent budgets. Once the year ends, the actual numbers are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), post which they are presented to Parliament with the upcoming budget, i.e. two years after the estimates are made.
For instance, estimates for the year 2018-19 were presented as part of the 2018-19 budget in February 2018. In the 2019-20 interim budget presented in February 2019 (10 months after the financial year 2018-19 got underway), the government revised these estimates based on the actual receipts and expenditure accounted so far during the year and incorporated estimates for the remaining two months.
The actual receipts and expenditure accounts of the central government are maintained by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance on a monthly basis. In addition to the monthly accounts, the CGA also publishes the provisional unaudited figures for the financial year by the end of the month of May. Once these provisional figures are audited by the CAG, they are presented as actuals in next year’s budget. The CGA reported the figures for 2018-19 on May 31, 2019.[1] The Economic Survey 2018-19 presented on July 4, 2019 uses these figures.[2]
The budget presented on July 5 replicates the revised estimates reported as part of the interim budget (February 1, 2019). Thus, it did not take into account the updated figures for the year 2018-19 from the CGA.
Table 1 gives a comparison of the 2018-19 revised estimates presented by the central government in the budget with the provisional unaudited figures maintained by the CGA for the year 2018-19.[3]
Table 1: Budget at a Glance: Comparison of 2018-19 revised estimates with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)
|
Actuals |
Budgeted |
Revised |
Provisional |
Difference |
|
|
Revenue Expenditure |
18,78,833 |
21,41,772 |
21,40,612 |
20,08,463 |
-1,32,149 |
|
Capital Expenditure |
2,63,140 |
3,00,441 |
3,16,623 |
3,02,959 |
-13,664 |
|
Total Expenditure |
21,41,973 |
24,42,213 |
24,57,235 |
23,11,422 |
-1,45,813 |
|
Revenue Receipts |
14,35,233 |
17,25,738 |
17,29,682 |
15,63,170 |
-1,66,512 |
|
Capital Receipts |
1,15,678 |
92,199 |
93,155 |
1,02,885 |
9,730 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries of Loans |
15,633 |
12,199 |
13,155 |
17,840 |
4,685 |
|
Other receipts (including disinvestments) |
1,00,045 |
80,000 |
80,000 |
85,045 |
5,045 |
|
Total Receipts (without borrowings) |
15,50,911 |
18,17,937 |
18,22,837 |
16,66,055 |
-1,56,782 |
|
Revenue Deficit |
4,43,600 |
4,16,034 |
4,10,930 |
4,45,293 |
34,363 |
|
% of GDP |
2.6 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
2.4 |
|
|
Fiscal Deficit |
5,91,062 |
6,24,276 |
6,34,398 |
6,45,367 |
10,969 |
|
% of GDP |
3.5 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
|
Primary Deficit |
62,110 |
48,481 |
46,828 |
62,692 |
15,864 |
|
% of GDP |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
|
Sources: Budget at a Glance, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.
The 2018-19 provisional figures for revenue receipts is Rs 15,63,170 crore, which is Rs 1,66,512 crore less than the revised estimates. This is largely due to Rs 1,67,455 crore shortfall in centre’s net tax revenue between the revised estimates and the provisional estimates (Table 2).
Major taxes which see a shortfall between the gross tax revenue presented in the revised estimates vis-à-vis the provisional figures are income tax (Rs 67,346 crore) and GST (Rs 59,930 crore). Non-tax revenue and disinvestment receipts as per the provisional figures are higher than the revised estimates.
Table 2: Break up of central government receipts: Comparison of 2018-19 RE with CGA figures (unaudited) (Rs crore)
|
|
Actuals |
Budgeted |
Revised |
Provisional |
Difference |
|
Gross Tax Revenue |
19,19,009 |
22,71,242 |
22,48,175 |
20,80,203 |
-1,67,972 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporation Tax |
5,71,202 |
6,21,000 |
6,71,000 |
6,63,572 |
-7,428 |
|
Taxes on Income |
4,30,772 |
5,29,000 |
5,29,000 |
4,61,654 |
-67,346 |
|
Goods and Services Tax |
4,42,562 |
7,43,900 |
6,43,900 |
5,83,970 |
-59,930 |
|
Customs |
1,29,030 |
1,12,500 |
1,30,038 |
1,17,930 |
-12,108 |
|
Union Excise Duties |
2,59,431 |
2,59,600 |
2,59,612 |
2,30,998 |
-28,614 |
|
A. Centre's Net Tax Revenue |
12,42,488 |
14,80,649 |
14,84,406 |
13,16,951 |
-1,67,455 |
|
B. Non Tax Revenue |
1,92,745 |
2,45,089 |
2,45,276 |
2,46,219 |
943 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Receipts |
13,574 |
15,162 |
12,047 |
12,815 |
768 |
|
Dividend and Profits |
91,361 |
1,07,312 |
1,19,264 |
1,13,424 |
-5,840 |
|
Other Non-Tax Revenue |
87,810 |
1,22,615 |
1,13,965 |
1,19,980 |
6,015 |
|
C. Capital Receipts (without borrowings) |
1,15,678 |
92,199 |
93,155 |
1,02,885 |
9,730 |
|
of which: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disinvestment |
1,00,045 |
80,000 |
80,000 |
85,045 |
5,045 |
|
Receipts (without borrowings) (A+B+C) |
15,50,911 |
18,17,937 |
18,22,837 |
16,66,055 |
-1,56,782 |
|
Borrowings |
5,91,062 |
6,24,276 |
6,34,398 |
6,45,367 |
10,969 |
|
Total Receipts (including borrowings) |
21,41,973 |
24,42,213 |
24,57,235 |
23,11,422 |
-1,45,813 |
Note: Centre’s net tax revenue is gross tax revenue less share of states in central taxes. Figures for GST include receipts from the GST compensation cess. Note that GST was levied for a nine-month period during the year 2017-18, starting July 2017.
Sources: Receipts Budget, Union Budget 2019-20; Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance; PRS.
While the provisional figures show a considerable decrease in receipts (Rs 1,56,782 crore) as compared to the revised estimates, fiscal deficit has not shown a comparable increase. Fiscal deficit is estimated to be Rs 10,969 crore higher than the revised estimates as per the provisional accounts.
On the expenditure side, the total expenditure as per the provisional figures show a decrease of Rs 1,45,813 crore as compared to the revised estimates. Certain Ministries and expenditure items have seen a decrease in expenditure as compared to the revised estimates made by the government. As per the provisional accounts, the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution are Rs 22,133 crore and Rs 70,712 crore lower than the revised estimates, respectively. The decrease in the Ministries’ expenditure as a percentage of the revised estimates are 29% and 39%, respectively. The food subsidy according to CGA was Rs 1,01,904 crore, which was Rs 69,394 crore lower than the revised estimates for the year 2018-19 given in the budget documents.
[1] “Accounts of the Union Government of India (Provisional/Unaudited) for the Financial Year 2018-19”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance, May 31, 2019.
[2] Fiscal Developments, Economic Survey 2018-19, https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/vol2chapter/echap02_vol2.pdf.
[3] Controller General of Accounts, Ministry of Finance, March 2018-19, http://www.cga.nic.in/MonthlyReport/Published/3/2018-2019.aspx.
