Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified. Last date for submitting the applications is December 21, 2024.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, all passenger trains were suspended till April 14, 2020. However, goods services have been continuing with trains carrying essential commodities to various parts of the country. Railways has also made railway parcel vans available for quick mass transportation for e-commerce entities and other customers including state governments to transport certain goods. These include medical supplies, medical equipment, food, etc. in small parcel sizes. Besides these, Railways has taken several other actions to provide help during the pandemic.
Since the travel ban extends from March 23 till April 14, 2020 (and may extend further), it will impact Railways’ finances for both 2019-20 and 2020-21. In this post, we discuss the situation of Railways’ finances, and what could be the potential impact of the travel ban on Railways’ revenues.
Impact of the travel ban on Railways’ internal revenue
Railways generates internal revenue primarily from passenger and freight traffic. In 2018-19 (latest actuals), freight and passenger traffic contributed to about 67% and 27% of the internal revenue respectively. The remaining is earned from other miscellaneous sources such as parcel service, coaching receipts, and sale of platform tickets. In 2020-21, Railways expects to earn 65% of its internal revenue from freight and 27% from passenger traffic.
Passenger traffic: In 2020-21, Railways expects to earn Rs 61,000 crore from passenger traffic, an increase of 9% over the revised estimates of 2019-20 (Rs 56,000 crore).
As per numbers provided by the Ministry of Railways, up to February 2020, passenger revenue was approximately Rs 48,801 crore. This is Rs 7,199 crore less than the 2019-20 revised estimates for passenger revenue, implying that this much amount will have to be generated in March 2020 to meet the revised estimate targets (13% of the year’s target). However, the average passenger revenue in 2019-20 (for the 11 months) has been around Rs 4,432 crore. Note that in March 2019 passenger revenue was Rs 4,440 crore. With passenger travel completely banned since March 23, Railways will fall short of its target for passenger revenue in 2019-20.
As of now, it is unclear when travel across the country will resume to business as usual. Some states have started extending the lockdown within their state. In such a situation, the decline in passenger revenue could last longer than these three weeks of lockdown.
Freight traffic: In 2020-21, Railways expects to earn Rs 1,47,000 crore from goods traffic, an increase of 9% over the revised estimates of 2019-20 (Rs 1,34,733 crore).
As per numbers provided by the Ministry of Railways, up to February 2020, freight revenue was approximately Rs 1,08,658 crore. This is Rs 26,075 crore less than the 2019-20 revised estimates for freight revenue. This implies that Rs 26,075 crore will have to be generated by freight traffic in March 2020 to meet the revised estimate targets (19% of the year’s target). However, the average freight revenue in 2019-20 (for the 11 months) has been around Rs 10,029 crore. Note that in March 2019, freight revenue was Rs 16,721 crore.
While passenger traffic has been completely banned, freight traffic has been moving. Transportation of essential goods, and operations of Railways for cargo movement, relief and evacuation and their related operational organisations has been allowed under the lockdown. Several goods carried by Railways (coal, iron-ore, steel, petroleum products, foodgrains, fertilisers) have been declared to be essential goods. Railways has also started operating special parcel trains (to carry essential goods, e-commerce goods, etc.) since the lockdown. These activities will help continue the generation of freight revenue.
However, some goods that Railways transports, such as cement which contributes to about 8% of Railways’ freight revenue, have not been classified as essential goods. Railways has also relaxed certain charges levied on freight traffic. It remains to be seen if Railways will be able to meet its targets for freight revenue.
Figure 1: Share of freight volume and revenue in 2018-19 (in %)
Sources: Expenditure Profile, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS.
Freight has been cross-subsidising passenger traffic; it may worsen this year
Railways ends up using profits from its freight business to provide for such losses in the passenger segment, and also to manage its overall financial situation. Such cross-subsidisation has resulted in high freight tariffs. With the ban on passenger travel and if the lockdown (in some form) were to continue, passenger operations will face more losses. This may increase the cross-subsidy burden on freight. Since Railways cannot increase freight charges any further, it is unclear how such cross-subsidisation would work.
For example, in 2017-18, passenger and other coaching services incurred losses of Rs 37,937 crore, whereas freight operations made a profit of Rs 39,956 crore. Almost 95% of profit earned from freight operations was utilised to compensate for the loss from passenger and other coaching services. The total passenger revenue during this period was Rs 46,280 crore. This implies that losses in the passenger business are about 82% of its revenue. Therefore, in 2017-18, for every one rupee earned in its passenger business, Indian Railways ended up spending Rs 1.82.
Railways expenditure
While the travel ban has meant that Railways cannot run all its services, it still has to incur much of its operating expenditure. Staff wages and pension have to be paid and these together comprise 66% of the Railways’ revenue expenditure. Between 2015 and 2020 (budget estimate), Railways’ expenditure on salary has grown at an average annual rate of 13%.
About 18% of the revenue expenditure is on fuel expenses, but that may see some decline due to a fall in oil prices. Railways will also have to continue spending on maintenance, safety and depreciation as these are long-term costs that cannot be done away with. In addition, regular maintenance of rail infrastructure will be necessary for freight operations.
Revenue Surplus and Operating Ratio could further worsen
Railways’ surplus is calculated as the difference between its total internal revenue and its revenue expenditure (this includes working expenses and appropriation to pension and depreciation funds). Operating Ratio is the ratio of the working expenditure (expenses arising from day-to-day operations of Railways) to the revenue earned from traffic. Therefore, a higher ratio indicates a poorer ability to generate a surplus that can be used for capital investments such as laying new lines, or deploying more coaches. A decline in revenue surplus affects Railways’ ability to invest in its infrastructure.
In the last decade, Railways has struggled to generate a higher surplus. Consequently, the Operating Ratio has consistently been higher than 90% (see Figure 2). In 2018-19, the ratio worsened to 97.3% as compared to the estimated ratio of 92.8%. The CAG (2019) had noted that if advances for 2018-19 were not included in receipts, the operating ratio for 2017-18 would have been 102.66%.
In 2020-21, Railways expects to generate a surplus of Rs 6,500 crore, and maintain the operating ratio at 96.2%. With revenue generation getting affected due to the lockdown, this surplus may further decline, and the operating ratio may further worsen.
Figure 2: Operating Ratio
Note: RE – Revised Estimates, BE – Budget Estimates.
Sources: Expenditure Profile, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS.
Other sources of revenue
Besides its own internal resources, Railways has two other primary sources of financing: (i) budgetary support from the central government, and (ii) extra-budgetary resources (primarily borrowings but also includes institutional financing, public-private partnerships, and foreign direct investment).
Budgetary support from central government: The central government supports Railways to expand its network and invest in capital expenditure. In 2020-21, the gross budgetary support from the central government is proposed at Rs 70,250 crore. This is 3% higher than the revised estimates of 2019-20 (Rs 68,105 crore). Note that with government revenue also getting affected due to the COVID pandemic, this amount may also change during the course of the year.
Borrowings: Railways mostly borrows funds through the Indian Railways Finance Corporation (IRFC). IRFC borrows funds from the market (through taxable and tax-free bond issuances, term loans from banks and financial institutions), and then follows a leasing model to finance the rolling stock assets and project assets of Indian Railways.
In the past few years, Railways’ borrowings have increased sharply to bridge the gap between the available resources and expenditure. Earlier, majority of the Railways’ capital expenditure used to be met from the budgetary support from central government. In 2015-16, this trend changed with the majority of Railways’ capital expenditure being met through extra budgetary resources (EBR). In 2020-21, Rs 83,292 crore is estimated to be raised through EBR, which is marginally higher than the revised estimates of 2019-20 (Rs 83,247 crore).
Note that both these sources are primarily used to fund Railways’ capital expenditure. Some part of the support from central government is used to reimburse Railways for the operating losses made on strategic lines, and for the operational cost of e-ticketing to IRCTC (Rs 2,216 crore as per budget estimates of 2020-21).
If Railways’ revenue receipts decline this year, it may require additional support from the central government to finance its revenue expenditure, or finance it through its borrowings. However, an increased reliance on borrowings could further exacerbate the financial situation of Railways. In the last few years, there has been a decline in the growth of both rail-based freight and passenger traffic (see Figure 3) and this has affected Railways’ earnings from its core business. A decline in growth of revenue will affect the transporter’s ability to pay off its debt in the future.
Figure 3: Volume growth for freight and passenger (year-on-year)
Note: RE – Revised Estimates; BE – Budget Estimates.
Sources: Expenditure Profile, Union Budget 2020-21; PRS.
Social service by Railways
Besides running freight trains, Railways has also been carrying out several other functions, to help deal with the pandemic. For example, Railways’ manufacturing capacity is being harnessed to help deal with COVID-19. Production facilities available with Railways are being used to manufacture items like PPE gear. Railways has also been exploring how to use its existing manufacturing facilities to produce simple beds, medical trolleys, and ventilators. Railways has also started providing bulk cooked food to needy people at places where IRCTC base kitchens are located. The transporter also opened up its hospitals for COVID patients.
As on April 6, 2,500 rail coaches had been converted as isolation coaches. On average, 375 coaches are being converted in a day, across 133 locations in the country.
Considering that railways functions as a commercial department under the central government, the question is whether Railways should bear these social costs. The NITI Aayog (2016) had noted that there is a lack of clarity on the social and commercial objectives of Railways. It may be argued that such services could be considered as a public good during a pandemic. However, the question is who should bear the financial burden of providing such services? Should it be Indian Railways, or should the central or state government provide this amount through an explicit subsidy?
For details on the number of daily COVID cases in the country and across states, please see here. For details on the major COVID related notifications released by the centre and the states, please see here. For a detailed analysis of the Railways’ functioning and finances, please see here, and to understand this year’s Railways budget numbers, see here.
In light of the decision of the union cabinet to promulgate an Ordinance to uphold provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951, this blog examines the Ordinance making power of the Executive in India. The Ordinance allows legislators (Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies) to retain membership of the legislature even after conviction, if (a) an appeal against the conviction is filed before a court within 90 days and (b) the appeal is stayed by the court. However, the Ordinance will only be promulgated after it receives the assent of the President. I. Separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary In India, the central and state legislatures are responsible for law making, the central and state governments are responsible for the implementation of laws and the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts and lower courts) interprets these laws. However, there are several overlaps in the functions and powers of the three institutions. For example, the President has certain legislative and judicial functions and the legislature can delegate some of its functions to the executive in the form of subordinate legislation. II. Ordinance making powers of the President Article 123 of the Constitution grants the President certain law making powers to promulgate Ordinances when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session and hence it is not possible to enact laws in the Parliament.[i] An Ordinance may relate to any subject that the Parliament has the power to legislate on. Conversely, it has the same limitations as the Parliament to legislate, given the distribution of powers between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists. Thus, the following limitations exist with regard to the Ordinance making power of the executive: i. Legislature is not in session: The President can only promulgate an Ordinance when either of the two Houses of Parliament is not in session. ii. Immediate action is required: The President cannot promulgate an Ordinance unless he is satisfied that there are circumstances that require taking ‘immediate action’[ii]. iii. Parliamentary approval during session: Ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of reassembling or they shall cease to operate. They will also cease to operate in case resolutions disapproving the Ordinance are passed by both the Houses. Figure 1 shows the number of Ordinances that have been promulgated in India since 1990. The largest number of Ordinances was promulgated in 1993, and there has been a decline in the number of Ordinance promulgated since then. However, the past year has seen a rise in the number of Ordinances promulgated. Figure 1: Number of national Ordinances promulgated in India since 1990 
Source: Ministry of Law and Justice; Agnihotri, VK (2009) ‘The Ordinance: Legislation by the Executive in India when the Parliament is not in Session’; PRS Legislative Research III. Ordinance making powers of the Governor Just as the President of India is constitutionally mandated to issue Ordinances under Article 123, the Governor of a state can issue Ordinances under Article 213, when the state legislative assembly (or either of the two Houses in states with bicameral legislatures) is not in session. The powers of the President and the Governor are broadly comparable with respect to Ordinance making. However, the Governor cannot issue an Ordinance without instructions from the President in three cases where the assent of the President would have been required to pass a similar Bill.[iii] IV. Key debates relating to the Ordinance making powers of the Executive There has been significant debate surrounding the Ordinance making power of the President (and Governor). Constitutionally, important issues that have been raised include judicial review of the Ordinance making powers of the executive; the necessity for ‘immediate action’ while promulgating an Ordinance; and the granting of Ordinance making powers to the executive, given the principle of separation of powers. Table 1 provides a brief historical overview of the manner in which the debate on the Ordinance making powers of the executive has evolved in India post independence. Table 1: Key debates on the President's Ordinance making power
| Year |
Legislative development |
Key arguments |
| 1970 | RC Cooper vs. Union of India | In RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) the Supreme Court, while examining the constitutionality of the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1969 which sought to nationalise 14 of India’s largest commercial banks, held that the President’s decision could be challenged on the grounds that ‘immediate action’ was not required; and the Ordinance had been passed primarily to by-pass debate and discussion in the legislature. |
| 1975 | 38th Constitutional Amendment Act | Inserted a new clause (4) in Article 123 stating that the President’s satisfaction while promulgating an Ordinance was final and could not be questioned in any court on any ground. |
| 1978 | 44th Constitutional Amendment Act | Deleted clause (4) inserted by the 38th CAA and therefore reopened the possibility for the judicial review of the President’s decision to promulgate an Ordinance. |
| 1980 | AK Roy vs. Union of India | In AK Roy vs. Union of India (1982) while examining the constitutionality of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, which sought to provide for preventive detention in certain cases, the Court argued that the President’s Ordinance making power is not beyond the scope of judicial review. However, it did not explore the issue further as there was insufficient evidence before it and the Ordinance was replaced by an Act. It also pointed out the need to exercise judicial review over the President’s decision only when there were substantial grounds to challenge the decision, and not at “every casual and passing challenge”. |
| 1985 | T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh | In T Venkata Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1985), while deliberating on the promulgation of the Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts of Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984 which abolished certain village level posts, the Court reiterated that the Ordinance making power of the President and the Governor was a legislative power, comparable to the legislative power of the Parliament and state legislatures respectively. This implies that the motives behind the exercise of this power cannot be questioned, just as is the case with legislation by the Parliament and state legislatures. |
| 1987 | DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar | It was argued in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar (1987) the legislative power of the executive to promulgate Ordinances is to be used in exceptional circumstances and not as a substitute for the law making power of the legislature. Here, the court was examining a case where a state government (under the authority of the Governor) continued to re-promulgate ordinances, that is, it repeatedly issued new Ordinances to replace the old ones, instead of laying them before the state legislature. A total of 259 Ordinances were re-promulgated, some of them for as long as 14 years. The Supreme Court argued that if Ordinance making was made a usual practice, creating an ‘Ordinance raj’ the courts could strike down re-promulgated Ordinances. |
Source: Basu, DD (2010) Introduction to the Constitution of India; Singh, Mahendra P. (2008) VN Shukla's Constitution of India; PRS Legislative Research
This year, the following 9 Ordinances have been promulgated:
Three of these Ordinances have been re-promulgated, i.e., a second Ordinance has been promulgated to replace an existing one. This seems to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in DC Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar.
Notes: [i] With regard to issuing Ordinances as with other matters, the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers. While the Ordinance is promulgated in the name of the President and constitutionally to his satisfaction, in fact, it is promulgated on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
[ii] Article 123, Clause (1)
[iii] (a) if a Bill containing the same provisions would have required the previous sanction of the President for introduction into the legislature; (b) if the Governor would have deemed it necessary to reserve a Bill containing the same provisions for the consideration of the President; and (c) if an Act of the legislature containing the same provisions would have been invalid unless it received the assent of the President.
