Parliament voted on the Demands for Grants for the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 02, 2012. During the debate, MPs expressed concern over the status of police forces in different States of the country. They emphasised the need to augment the capability of police forces. Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are State subjects, the union government provides assistance to States for strengthening their forces. For instance, the Ministry of Home Affairs has been implementing a non-plan scheme for ‘Modernization of Police Forces’ since 1969-70. Under the scheme assistance is provided in the form of grants-in-aid towards construction of secure police stations, outposts, for purchase of vehicles, equipment etc. (To know more about the scheme, see an earlier blog post on the issue.) At the all India level, the sanctioned strength of State Police equals 20.6 lakh personnel. Though there exist wide variations across States, at an average this amounts to 174 police personnel per lakh population. However, the actual ratio is much lower because of high vacancies in the police forces. At the aggregate level, 24% positions are vacant. The table below provides data on the strength of state police forces as in Jan, 2011
| State | Sanctioned strength | Sanctioned policemen/ lakh of population | Vacancy |
| Andhra Pradesh | 1,31,099 | 155 | 31% |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 11,955 | 966 | 42% |
| Assam | 62,149 | 200 | 12% |
| Bihar | 85,939 | 88 | 27% |
| Chhattisgarh | 50,869 | 207 | 18% |
| Goa | 6,108 | 348 | 16% |
| Gujarat | 87,877 | 151 | 27% |
| Haryana | 61,307 | 248 | 28% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 17,187 | 256 | 22% |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 77,464 | 575 | 6% |
| Jharkhand | 73,005 | 235 | 30% |
| Karnataka | 91,256 | 155 | 10% |
| Kerala | 49,394 | 141 | 7% |
| Madhya Pradesh | 83,524 | 115 | 9% |
| Maharashtra | 1,53,148 | 139 | 10% |
| Manipur | 31,081 | 1,147 | 26% |
| Meghalaya | 12,268 | 469 | 17% |
| Mizoram | 11,246 | 1,112 | 6% |
| Nagaland | 24,226 | 1,073 | 0% |
| Orissa | 53,291 | 130 | 18% |
| Punjab | 79,565 | 291 | 14% |
| Rajasthan | 79,554 | 118 | 11% |
| Sikkim | 5,421 | 886 | 27% |
| Tamil Nadu | 1,20,441 | 178 | 15% |
| Tripura | 44,310 | 1,224 | 17% |
| Uttar Pradesh | 3,68,260 | 184 | 59% |
| Uttarakhand | 20,775 | 211 | 24% |
| West Bengal | 72,998 | 81 | 18% |
| A&N Islands | 4,417 | 1,018 | 22% |
| Chandigarh | 7,873 | 695 | 22% |
| D&N Haveli | 325 | 114 | 13% |
| Daman & Diu | 281 | 140 | 6% |
| Delhi | 81,467 | 441 | 1% |
| Lakshadweep | 349 | 478 | 36% |
| Puducherry | 3,941 | 352 | 25% |
| All India | 20,64,370 | 174 | 24% |
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 90, 13th March, 2012 and Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1042, March 20, 2012
During the recess, the Departmentally Related Standing Committees of Parliament examine the Demand for Grants submitted by various Ministries. The Demand for Grants are detailed explanations of that Ministry's annual budget which form part of the total budget of the government. These are examined in detail, and the committees can approve of the demands, or suggest changes. The Demand for Grants are finally discussed and voted on by the Parliament after the recess. (The post below lists the ministries whose Demand for Grants will be discussed in detail after the recess). The issue is - how effective is the institution of Parliament in examining the budget? Though India specific information on this subject is hard to find, K. Barraclough and B. Dorotinsky have cited the World Bank - OECD Budget procedures Database to formulate a table on the legislature approving the budget presented by the executive ("The Role of the Legislature in the Budget Process: A Comparative Review", Legislative Oversight and Budgeting). I reproduce the table below:
| In Practice, does the legislature generally approve the budget as presented by the Executive? (in percent) | ||||
| Answer | All Countries | OECD Countries | Presidential democracies | Parliamentary democracies |
| It generally approves the budget with no changes | 34 | 33 | 14 | 41 |
| Minor changes are made (affecting less than 3% of total spending) | 63 | 67 | 71 | 59 |
| Major changes are made (affecting more than 3% but less than 20% of total spending) | 2 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| The budget approved is significantly different (affecting more than 20% of total spending) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sources: K. Barraclough and B. Dorotinsky; PRS. | ||||
