LegislationExamining the Model Tenancy Act, 2021 and regulation of rental property in IndiaShruti Gupta- June 10, 2021The Union Cabinet approvedthe Model Tenancy Act, 2021on June 2, 2021, for adoption by state and union territory governments.  The Model Act has threeprimary objectives.   First, itaims to regulaterenting of residential and commercial premises by establishing conditions for tenancy, eviction, and management of the property.Second, in regulating tenancy, itproposes mechanisms to balance and protect the rights of landlords and tenants.  Last, it proposes a three-tier adjudicatory mechanism consisting of Rent Authorities, Rent Courts, and Rent Tribunals for speedy adjudication of tenancy related disputes.However, note that rental housing is regulated by states as land, land improvement, and control of rents falls under the State List of theIndian Constitution.   This Model Actis only a proposed framework that states and union territories may alter when passing their own tenancy laws.In this blog, we provide a background on the rental housing market and explain some issues with the 2021 Model Act.Need for the ActIn India,95% of householdsin rural areas live in self-owned housing, and rental housing is a predominantly urban phenomenon.  Between 1951 and 2011, the urban population in Indiagrewby six times and as of 2011,comprises31% of the total population.  This isprojectedto grow to 40% by 2036.  However, the share of persons living in urban rental accommodation has decreased from 58% to 27% between 1961 and 2011.  The2015 draft National Urban Rental Housing Policynoted that urban areas face a significant housing shortage and stated that this cannot be addressed by home ownership.   In 2012, a Technical Group studying urban housing shortageestimatedthe urban housing shortage to be at 1.9 crore units.  The2011 Censusnoted that between 6.5 crore to 10 crore people (17% to 24% of the urban population) live in unauthorised housing in urban areas.  TheEconomic Survey (2017-18)noted that rental housing is a key way to address informality and shortage.  It stated that rental housing enables mobility and affordability for low-income segments, who may not be able to purchase housing.  It also observed that a significant portion of urban rental housing stock is vacant, attributing it to unclear property laws, poor contract enforcement, and rent control laws.State governmentsregulaterental housing through various legislative tools including rent control laws.  To prevent landlords from charging exorbitant rent and ensure affordable housing, these laws specify a ceiling on rent and put conditions on eviction of tenants.  The 2015 draft Policynotedthat rent control laws discourage private investment in rental properties.  It observed that rent control laws also skew arrangements towards tenants and lead to more litigation.  This haserodedthe trust of landlords in the regulatory system.  A significant share of the rental demand is addressed through alternate arrangements such as leave and license agreements and informal leases.A model law to regulate tenancy was first proposed in1992.  The first draft Model Tenancy Act was released in2015, which was adopted byTamil Nadu.  However, as of 2021, 20 states includingKarnataka,Maharashtra, andWest Bengalcontinue to have rent control laws.  A few states includingMadhya Pradesh,Jharkhand, andChhattisgarhhave repealed their rent control laws.Besides its key objectives, the Model Act also seeks to ensure affordability, formalisation and increase private investment in the rental housing market.  The framework proposed under the Model Act may address some of these concerns.  However,expertshave recommended supplementing this with other policy initiatives to meet these objectives.For instance, a 2012 Technical Groupobservedthat about 96% of the urban housing shortage pertains to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Lower Income Group (LIG) categories.  The 2015 draft Urban Rental Housing Policynotedthat a repeal of rent control laws may increase private investment and availability of rental housing.   However, it has recommended several other measures to ensure affordability of rental housing.  These include:(i) provision of incentives such as tax exemptions and subsidies to tenants and home owners, (ii) encouraging public-private partnerships and residential rental management companies, and (iii) enhancing access to finance within the EWS and LIG sectors.Concerns for right to privacyThe Model Act requires all landlord and tenants to intimate the Rent Authority about a rental agreement with a prescribed form.   The form requires both the tenant and the landlord to submit their Aadhaar numbers and attach self-attested copies of the card with the form.  This may violate a 2018 Supreme Courtjudgement, which states that requiring Aadhaar card or number can be made mandatory only for expenditure on a subsidy, benefit or service incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India.  Registering a tenancy agreement does not entail these, therefore making Aadhaar number mandatory for registering a tenancy may violate the judgement.The Model Act also states that tenants and landlords will be provided with a unique identification number after registering a rental agreement.  Details of the agreement along with other documents will be uploaded on the Rent Authority’s website.  It is unclear if personal details of the parties such as PAN and Aadhaar number, which must be submitted along with the agreement, will also be made available publicly.  If these are shared on the website, this may violate the right to privacy of the involved parties.  The Supreme Court hasincludedthe right to privacy as a fundamental right.   This right may be infringed only if three conditions are met: (i) there is a law, (ii) the law achieves a public purpose, and (iii) the public purpose is proportionate to the violation of privacy.   Sharing personal information of individuals may not serve a public purpose, and hence may violate the right to privacy of such individuals.Dispute redressalThe preamble ofthe 2021 Model Actand thebackground noteaccompanying the 2020 draft Model Act state that it seeks to establish a speedy adjudication mechanism for disputes linked to tenancy agreements.  The Model Act specifies the timelines for resolution of cases linked with eviction and payment of rent.  However, timelines have not been specified for certain cases.  For instance, no timeline has been specified within whichthe Rent Authority must resolve a dispute on withholding of essential services or revision of rent.Specification of minute detailsTheModel Actseeks to balance the tenant-landlord relationship by specifying rights and duties of both parties.  However, it also caps the maximum possible security deposit amount that a tenant must pay to the landlord.  Further, a suggestive framework for the rental agreement also includes minute details on responsibility for repair and maintenance.  If codified, these specifications may hinder flexibility in framing tenancy agreements.For a PRS analysis of the Model Tenancy Act 2021, please seehere.Read MoreParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


States and State LegislaturesExamining urban local governance in India through the case of BengaluruPrachi Kaur,Shruti Gupta- December 24, 2020Recently, the Karnataka legislature passed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Bill, 2020.  BBMP is the municipal corporation of the Greater Bengaluru metropolitan area.  The BBMP Act, 2020 seeks to improve decentralisation, ensure public participation, and address certain administrative and structural concerns in Bengaluru.  In this blog, we discuss some common issues in urban local governance in India, in the context of Bengaluru’s municipal administration.The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992providedfor the establishment of urban local bodies (ULBs) (including municipal corporations) as institutions of local self-government.  It also empowered state governments to devolve certain functions, authority, and power to collect revenue to these bodies, and made periodic elections for them compulsory.Urban governance is part of thestate listunder the Constitution.  Thus, the administrative framework and regulation of ULBs varies across states.  However,expertshave highlighted that ULBs across India face similar challenges.  For instance, ULBs across the countrylack autonomyin city management and several city-level functions are managed by parastatals (managed by and accountable to the state).  Several taxation powers have alsonot been devolvedto these bodies, leading to stressed municipal finances.  These challenges have led topoor service deliveryin cities and also created administrative and governance challenges at the municipal level.BBMP wasestablishedunder the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (KMC Act).  The BBMP Act, 2020replacesprovisions of the KMC Act, 1976 in its application to Bengaluru.  Itaddsa new level of zonal committees to the existing three-tier municipal structure in the city, and also gives the Corporation some more taxation powers.  Certain common issues in urban local governance in India, with provisions related to them in the BBMP Act, 2020 are given below.Functional overlap with parastatals for key functionsTheConstitution (74thAmendment) Act, 1992empoweredstates to devolve the responsibility of 18 functions including urban planning, regulation of land use, water supply, and slum upgradation to ULBs.  However, in most Indian cities including Bengaluru, a majority of these functions arecarried outby parastatals.  For example, in Bengaluru, the Bengaluru Development Authority isresponsiblefor land regulation and the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board isresponsiblefor slum rehabilitation.TheBBMP Act, 2020provides the Corporation with the power and responsibility to prepare and implement schemes for the 18 functions provided for in the Constitution (74thAmendment) Act, 1992.  However, it does not provide clarity if new bodies at the municipal level will be created, or the existing parastatals will continue to perform these functions and if so, whether their accountability will shift from the state to the municipal corporation.This could create a two-fold challenge in administration.  First, if there are multiple agencies performing similar functions, it couldleadto a functional overlap, ambiguity, and wastage of resources.  Second, and more importantly, the presence of parastatals that are managed by and accountable to the state government leads to anerosionof the ULB’s autonomy.  Several experts havehighlightedthat this lack of autonomy faced by municipal corporations in most Indian cities leads to achallengein governance, effective service delivery, and development of urban areas.AnExpert Committee on Urban Infrastructure (2011)had recommended that activity mapping should be done for the 18 functions.  Under this, functions in the exclusive domain of municipalities and those which need to be shared with the state and the central government must be specified.  Experts have also recommended that the municipality should be responsible for providing civic amenities in its jurisdiction and if a parastatal exercises a civic function, it should beaccountable to the municipality.Stressed municipal financesIndian ULBs areamongst the weakestin the world in terms of fiscal autonomy and have limited effective devolution of revenue.  They also havelimited capacityto raise resources through their own sources of revenue such as property tax.  Municipal revenue in Indiaaccountsfor only one percent of the GDP (2017-18).  This leads to a dependence on transfers by the state and central government.ULBs in states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Haryana are inpoorfinancial condition.  This has beenattributedto limited powers to raise revenue and levy taxes, and problems in the management of existing resources.  For instance, the finances of Bihar’s ULBs were assessed to be poorbecauseof: (i) delays in release of grants, (ii) inadequate devolution of funds, and (iii) delays in revision of tax rates andassessments of landholdings.In comparison, Karnatakarankshigh among Indian states in key indicators for fiscal capacity like collection of property taxes, grants from Central Finance Commissions, and state government transfers.  TheBBMP Act, 2020further increases the taxation powers of the Corporation, by allowing it to impose taxes on professions and entertainment.Experts haverecommendedthat the central government and the respective state government should provide additional funds and facilitate additional funding mechanisms for ULBs to strengthen their finances.  The revenue of ULBs can beaugmentedthrough measures including assignment of greater powers of taxation to the ULBs by the state government, reforms in land and property-based taxes (such as the use oftechnologyto cover more properties), and issuing of municipal bonds (debt instruments issued by ULBs to finance development projects).Powers of elected municipal officialsThe executive power with state-appointed municipal Commissioners and elected municipal officers differs across states.  States likeTamil NaduandGujarat, and cities likeChennaiandHyderabadvest the executive power in the Commissioner.  In contrast, the executive power of the Corporation is exercised by a Mayor-in council (consisting of the Mayor and up to 10 elected members of the Corporation) inKolkataandMadhya Pradesh.  This is unlike large metropolitan cities in other countries likeNew YorkandLondon, where elected Mayors are designated as executive heads.  Experts havenotedthat charging Commissioners with executive power diluted the role of the Mayor and violated the spirit of self-governance.Under theBBMP Act, 2020, both the elected Mayor and the state-appointed Chief Commissioner exercise several executive functions.  The Mayor is responsible for approving contracts and preparing the budget estimate for the Corporation.  He is also required to discharge all functions assigned to him by the Corporation.  On the other hand, executive functions of the Chief Commissioner include: (i) selling or leasing properties owned by the Corporation, and (ii) regulating and issuing instructions regarding public streets.The Expert Committee on Urban Infrastructure (2011) hasrecommendedthat the Commissioner should act as a city manager and should be recruited through a transparent search-cum-selection process led by the Mayor.  A Model Municipal law, released by the Urban Development Ministry in 2003,providedthat the executive power should be exercised by an Empowered Standing Committee consisting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and seven elected councillors.Management of staff and human resourcesExperts havenotedthat municipal administration in India suffers from staffing issues which leads to a failure in delivering basic urban services.  Theseincludeoverstaffing of untrained manpower, shortage of qualified technical staff and managerial supervisors, and unwillingness to innovate in methods for service delivery.TheBBMP Act, 2020provides that the Corporation may make bye-laws for the due performance of duties by its employees.  However, it does not mention other aspects of human resource management such as recruitment and promotion.  ACAG report (2020)looking at the implementation of the Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992 in Karnataka has observed that the power to assess municipal staff requirements, recruiting such staff, and determining their pay, transfer and promotion vests with the state government.  This is in contrast with therecommendationsof several experts who have suggested that municipalities should appoint their personnel to ensure accountability, adequate recruitment, and proper management of staff.Other states includingKerala,MaharashtraandTamil Nadualso allow the state governments to regulate recruitment and staffing for ULBs.  In cities likeMumbai, andCoimbatore, and some states likeGujaratandMadhya Pradesh, while the recruitment process is conducted by the respective municipal corporations, the final sanction for hiring staff lies with the state government.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


LegislationAnti-Conversion Legislation: Comparison of the UP Ordinances with other state lawsAnoop Ramakrishnan- December 17, 2020This blog has been updated on Jan 19, 2021 to also cover the Madhya Pradesh Ordinance which was promulgated earlier in the month. The comparison table has also been revised accordingly.On November 27, 2020, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of ReligionOrdinance, 2020 was promulgated by the state government. This was followed by the Madhya Pradesh (MP) government promulgating the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, 2020, in January 2021. These Ordinances seek to regulate religious conversions and prohibit certain types of religious conversions (including through marriages). The MP Ordinance replaces the MP Dharma Swatantra Adhiniyam, 1968, which previously regulated religious conversions in the state. Few other states, includingHaryanaandKarnataka, are also planning to introduce a similar law.  This blog post looks at existing anti-conversion laws in the country and compares the latest UP and MP Ordinances with these laws.Anti-conversion laws in IndiaThe Constitution guarantees the freedom to profess, propagate, and practise religion, and allows all religious sections to manage their own affairs in matters of religion; subject to public order, morality, and health.  To date, there has been no central legislation restricting or regulating religious conversions. Further, in 2015, the Union Law Ministrystatedthat Parliament does not have the legislative competence to pass anti-conversion legislation. However, it is to be noted that, since 1954, on multiple occasions, Private Member Bills have been introduced in (but never approved by) the Parliament, to regulate religious conversions.Over the years, several states have enacted ‘Freedom of Religion’ legislation to restrict religious conversions carried out by force, fraud, or inducements.  These are: (i) Odisha (1967), (ii) Madhya Pradesh (1968), (iii) Arunachal Pradesh (1978), (iv) Chhattisgarh (2000and2006), (v) Gujarat (2003), (vi) Himachal Pradesh (2006and2019), (vii) Jharkhand (2017), and (viii) Uttarakhand (2018). Additionally, the Himachal Pradesh (2019) and Uttarakhand legislations also declare a marriage to be void if it was done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion, or vice-versa. Further, the states of Tamil Nadu (2002) and Rajasthan (2006and 2008) had also passed similar legislation.  However, the Tamil Nadu legislation wasrepealedin 2006 (after protests by Christian minorities), while in case of Rajasthan, the bills did not receive theGovernor’sandPresident’sassent respectively.  Please see Table 2 for a comparison of anti-conversion laws across the country.In November 2019, citing rising incidents of forced/fraudulent religious conversions, the Uttar Pradesh Law Commissionrecommendedenacting a new law to regulate religious conversions. This led the state government to promulgate the recent Ordinance in 2020. Following UP, the MP government also decided to promulgate an Ordinance in January 2021 to regulate religious conversions. We discuss key features of these ordinances below.What do the UP and MP Ordinances do?The MP and UP Ordinances define conversion as renouncing one’s existing religion and adopting another religion. However, both Ordinances exclude re-conversion to immediate previous religion (in UP), and parental religion (in MP) from this definition. Parental religion is the religion to which the individual’s father belonged to, at the time of the individual’s birth. These Ordinances prescribe the procedure for individuals seeking to undergo conversions (in the states of UP and MP) and declare all other forms of conversion (that violate the prescribed procedures) illegal.Procedure for conversion: Both the Ordinances require: (i) persons wishing to convert to a different religion, and (ii) persons supervising the conversion (religious convertors in UP, and religious priests or persons organising a conversion in MP) to submit an advance declaration of the proposed religious conversion to the District Magistrate (DM). In both states, the individuals seeking to undergo conversion are required to give advance notice of 60 days to the DM. However, in UP, the religious convertors are required to notify one month in advance, whereas in MP, the priests or organisers are also required to notify 60 days in advance. Upon receiving the declarations, the DMs in UP are further required to conduct a police enquiry into the intention, purpose, and cause of the proposed conversion. No such requirement exists in the MP Ordinance, although it mandates the DM’s sanction as a prerequisite for any court to take cognisance of an offence caused by violation of these procedures.The UP Ordinance also lays down a post-conversion procedure. Post-conversion, within 60 days from the date of conversion, the converted individual is required to submit a declaration (with various personal details) to the DM. The DM will publicly exhibit a copy of the declaration (till the conversion is confirmed) and record any objections to the conversion.  The converted individual must then appear before the DM to establish his/her identity, within 21 days of sending the declaration, and confirm the contents of the declaration.Both the Ordinances also prescribe varying punishments for violation of any procedure prescribed by them, as specified in Table 2.Prohibition on conversions: Both, the UP and MP Ordinances prohibit conversion of religion through means, such as: (i) force, misrepresentation, undue influence, and allurement, or (ii) fraud, or (iii) marriage.  They also prohibit a person from abetting, convincing, and conspiring to such conversions. Further, the Ordinances assign the burden of proof of the lawfulness of religious conversion to: (i) the persons causing or facilitating such conversions, in UP, and (ii) the person accused of causing unlawful conversion, in MP.Complaints against unlawful conversions:Both Ordinances allow for police complaints, against unlawful religious conversions, to be registered by: (i) the victim of such conversion, (ii) his/her parents or siblings, or (iii) any other person related to them by blood, and marriage or adoption. The MP Ordinance additionally permits persons related by guardianship or custodianship to also register a complaint, provided they take the leave of the court. Further, the MP Ordinance assigns the power to investigate such complaints to police officers of the rank of Sub-Inspector and above.Marriages involving religious conversion:As per the UP Ordinance, a marriage is liable to be declared null and void, if: (i) it was done for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion, or vice-versa, and (ii) the religious conversion was not done as per the procedure specified in the Ordinance. Similarly, the MP Ordinance declares a marriage null and void, if: (i) it was done with an intent to convert a person, and (ii) the conversion took place through any of the prohibited means specified under the Ordinance. Further, the MP Ordinance explicitly provides for punishment (as specified in Table 2) for the concealment of religion for the purpose of marriage.Right to inheritance and maintenance:The MP Ordinance additionally provides certain safeguards for women and children. It considers children born out of a marriage involving unlawful religious conversion as legitimate and provides for them to have the right to property of only the father (as per the law governing the inheritance of the father). Further, the Ordinance provides for maintenance to be given to: (i) a woman whose marriage is deemed unlawful under the Ordinance, and (ii) her children born out of such a marriage.Punishment for unlawful conversions: Both the MP and UP Ordinances provide for punishment for causing or facilitating unlawful religious conversion, as specified in Table 1. Also, all offences under both Ordinances are cognisable and non-bailable.Additionally,under the UP Ordinance, the accused will be liable to pay compensation of up to five lakh rupees to the victim of conversion and repeat offences will attract double the punishment specified for the respective offence. However,under the MP Ordinance, each repeat offence will attract punishment of a fine, and imprisonment between five and 10 years. Further, it provides for the Session Court to try an accused person, at the same trial, for: (i) an offence under this Ordinance, and (ii) also for other offences he has been charged with, under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.Table 1: Punishments prescribed under the UP and MP Ordinances for offences by individuals for causing/facilitating the conversionPunishmentUttar PradeshMadhya PradeshMass conversion (conversion of two or more persons at the same time)Term of imprisonment3-10 years5-10 yearsFine AmountRs 50,000 or moreRs 1,00,000 or moreConversion of a minor, woman, or person belonging to SC or STTerm of imprisonment2-10 years2-10 yearsFine AmountRs 25,000 or moreRs 50,000 or moreAny other conversionTerm of imprisonment1-5 years1-5 yearsFine AmountRs 15,000 or moreRs 25,000 or moreIf any of the above three offences are committed by an organisation, under the UP Ordinance, the registration of the organisation is liable to be cancelled and grants or financial aid from the state government is liable to be discontinued. Under the MP Ordinance, only the registration of such organisations is liable to be cancelled.* - It is not clear if the Chhattisgarh Law is currently in force or not.** - Madhya Pradesh originally enacted a law in 1968. And has now replaced it with an Ordinance in 2021.Note: ForOdisha,Jharkhand, andUttarakhand, some of the penalties have been specified in the Rules published under their respective Acts. For the rest of the states, the penalties have been specified in the respective Acts itself.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


PolicyMSP and Public ProcurementSuyash Tiwari- December 9, 2020Minimum Support Price (MSP) is the assured price at which foodgrains are procured from farmers by the central and state governments and their agencies,for the central pool of foodgrains.  The central pool is used for providing foodgrains under the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other welfare schemes, and also kept as reserve in the form of buffer stock.  However, in the past few months, there have been demands to extend MSP to private trade as well and guarantee MSP to farmers on all kinds of trade.  This blogpost looks at the state of public procurement of foodgrains in India and the provision of MSP.Is MSP applicable for all crops?The central government notifies MSP for 23 crops every year before theKharifandRabiseasons based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, an attached office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare.   These crops include foodgrains such as cereals, coarse grains, and pulses.  However, public procurement is largely limited to a few foodgrains such as paddy (rice), wheat, and, to a limited extent, pulses (Figure 1).Figure1:  Percentage of crop production that was procured at MSP in 2019-20Sources:  Unstarred Question No. 331, Lok Sabha, September 15, 2020; PRS.Since rice and wheat are the primary foodgrains distributed under PDS and stored for food security, their procurement level is considerably high.  However, the National Food Security Act, 2013 requires the central and state governments to progressively undertake necessary reforms in PDS.  One of the reforms requires them to diversify the commodities distributed under PDS over a period of time.How does procurement vary across states?The procurement of foodgrains islargely concentrated in a few states.  Three states (Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, and Haryana) producing 46% of the wheat in the country account for 85% of its procurement (Figure 2).   For rice, six states (Punjab, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Haryana) with 40% of the production have 74% share in procurement (Figure 3).  The National Food Security Act, 2013 requires the central, state, and local governments to strive to progressively realise certain objectives for advancing food and nutritional security.  One of these objectives involves geographical diversification of the procurement operations.Figure2:   85% wheat procurement is from three states (2019-20)Sources:  Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS.Figure3:   76% of the rice procured comes from six states (2019-20)Sources:  Department of Food and Public Distribution; PRS.Is MSP mandatory for private trade as well in some states?MSP is not mandatory for purchase of foodgrains by private traders or companies.  It acts as a reference price at which the government and its agencies procure certain foodgrains from farmers.In September 2020, the central government enacted a new farm law which allows anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the ‘trade area’ outside the markets notified or run by the state Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs).  Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the ‘trade area’.  These changes in regulations raised concerns regarding the kind of protections available to farmers in the ‘trade area’ outside APMC markets, particularly in terms of the price discovery and payment.  In October 2020, Punjab passed aBillin response to the central farm law to prohibit purchase of paddy and wheat below MSP.   Any person or company compelling or pressurising farmers to sell below MSP will be punished with a minimum of three-year imprisonment and a fine.  Note that 72% of the wheat and 92% of the rice produced in Punjab was purchased under public procurement in 2019-20.Similarly, in November 2020, Rajasthan passed aBillto declare those contract farming agreements as invalid where the purchase is done below MSP.   Any person or company compelling or pressurising farmers to enter into such an invalid contract will be punished with 3 to 7 years of imprisonment, or a fine of minimum five lakh rupees, or both.   Both these Bills have not been enacted yet as they are awaiting the Governors’ assent.How has MSP affected the cropping pattern?According to thecentral government’s procurement policy, the objective of public procurement is to ensure that farmers get remunerative prices for their produce and do not have to resort to distress sale.  If farmers get a better price in comparison to MSP, they are free to sell their produce in the open market.  TheEconomic Survey 2019-20observed that the regular increase in MSP is seen by farmers as a signal to opt for crops which have an assured procurement system (for example, rice and wheat).  The Economic Survey also noted that this indicates market prices do not offer remunerative options for farmers, and MSP has, in effect, become the maximum price that the farmers are able to realise.Thus, MSP incentivises farmers to grow crops which are procured by the government.  As wheat and rice are major food grains provided under the PDS, the focus of procurement is on these crops.  This skews the production of crops in favour of wheat and paddy (particularly in states where procurement levels are high), and does not offer an incentive for farmers to produce other items such as pulses.  Further, this puts pressure on the water table as these crops are water-intensive crops.To encourage crop diversification and thereby reduce the consumption of water, some state governments are taking measures to incentivise farmers to shift away from paddy and wheat.  For example, Haryana has launched aschemein 2020 to provide Rs 7,000 per acre to those farmers who will use more than 50% of their paddy area (as per the area sown in 2019-20) for other crops.  The farmers can grow maize, bajra, pulses, or cotton in such diversified area.  Further, the crop produce grown in such diversified area under the scheme will be procured by the state government at MSP.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


PolicyComparison of the 2020 central farm laws with the amendments proposed by statesPrachi Kaur,Suyash Tiwari- December 7, 2020A few weeks ago, in response to the initial protests by farmers against the new central farm laws, three state assemblies – Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan – passed Bills to address farmers’ concerns.  While these Bills await the respective Governors’ assent, protests against the central farm laws have gained momentum.  In this blog, we discuss the key amendments proposed by these states in response to the central farm laws.What are the central farm laws and what do they seek to do?In September 2020, Parliament enacted three laws: (i) theFarmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce(Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, (ii) theFarmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreementon Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and (iii) theEssential Commodities(Amendment) Act, 2020.  The laws collectively seek to: (i) facilitate barrier-free trade of farmers’ produce outside the markets notified under the various state Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) laws, (ii) define a framework for contract farming, and (iii) regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potatoes, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, and extraordinary price rise.How do the central farm laws change the agricultural regulatory framework?Agricultural marketing in most states is regulated by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees (APMCs), set up under the state APMC Act.  The central farm laws seek to facilitate multiple channels of marketing outside the existing APMC markets.  Many of these existing markets face issues such as limited number of buyers restricting the entry of new players and undue deductions in the form of commission charges and market fees.  The central laws introduced a liberalised agricultural marketing system with the aim of increasing the availability of buyers for farmers’ produce.  More buyers would lead to competition in the agriculture market resulting in better prices for farmers.Why have states proposed amendments to the central farm laws?The central farm laws allow anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the ‘trade area’ outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs.  Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the ‘trade area’.  These changes in regulations raised concerns regarding the kind of protections available to farmers in the ‘trade area’ outside APMC markets, particularly in terms of the price discovery and payment.  To address such concerns, the states of Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Rajasthan, in varying forms, proposed amendments to the existing agricultural marketing laws.ThePunjabandRajasthanassemblies passed Bills to amend the central Acts, in their application to these states.  The Chhattisgarh Assemblypassed a Billto amend its APMC Act in response to the central Acts.  These state Bills aim to prevent exploitation of farmers and ensure an optimum guarantee of fair market price for the agriculture produce.  Among other things, these state Bills enable state governments to levy market fee outside the physical premises of the state APMC markets, mandate MSP for certain types of agricultural trade, and enable state governments to regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities and impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances.ChhattisgarhTheFarmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce(Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 allows anyone with a PAN card to buy farmers’ produce in the trade area outside the markets notified or run by the APMCs.  Buyers do not need to get a license from the state government or APMC, or pay any tax to them for such purchase in the trade area.  The Chhattisgarh Assemblypassed a Bill to amend its APMC Actto allow the state government to notify structures outside APMC markets, such as godowns, cold storages, and e-trading platforms, as deemed markets.  This implies that such deemed markets will be under the jurisdiction of the APMCs as per the central Act.  Thus, APMCs in Chhattisgarh can levy market fee on sale of farmers’ produce in such deemed markets (outside the APMC markets) and require the buyer to have a license.Punjab and RajasthanThe Punjab and Rajasthan Bills empower the respective state governments to levy a market fee (on private traders, and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the state APMC markets.  Further, they mandate that in certain cases, agricultural produce should not be sold or purchased at a price below the Minimum Support Price (MSP).  For instance, in Punjabsale and purchase of wheat and paddyshould not be below MSP.  The Bills also provide that they will override any other law currently in force.  Table 1 gives a comparison of the amendments proposed by states with the related provisions of the central farm laws.Table 1: Comparison of the central farm laws with amendments proposed by Punjab and RajasthanProvisionCentral lawsState amendmentsMarket feeThe central Actsprohibitthe state governments and APMCs from levying any market fee, cess, or any other charge on the trade of farmers’ produce outside the market yards notified or run by APMCs.The state Bills empower the state government to levy a fee (on private traders and electronic trading platforms) for trade outside the markets established or notified under the respective state APMC Acts.  Such fees collected will be utilised for the welfare of small and marginal farmers in case ofPunjab, and for running of the APMCs and welfare of farmers in case ofRajasthan.Minimum Support Price (MSP) -fixed by the central government, based on the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and PricesThe central Acts do not provide for the MSP.  They do provide for acontractual agreementfor buyers and farmers to enter into prior to the production or rearing of any farm produce.  This agreement must specify a minimum guaranteed price that the buyer will pay to the farmer for the sale.ThePunjabBill provides that sale or purchase of wheat or paddy in state should be at prices equal to or above the MSP.TheRajasthanBill provides that the pre-determined prices for all crop under farming agreements should be at prices equal to or above the MSP.Penalties for compeling farmers to sell below MSPNot prescribed.InPunjab, if any buyer compels a farmer to sell wheat or paddy at a price below MSP, he will be penalised with an imprisonment term of at least three years and a fine.InRajsthan, if a buyer compels a farmer to enter into a farming agreement below MSP, it will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.Delivery under farming agreementsThecentral Acts providethat the delivery of the produce can be: (i) taken by buyers at farm gate within the agreed time, or (ii) made by the farmer, in which case the buyer will be responsible for preparations for timely acceptance of the delivery. The buyer may inspect the quality of the produce as defined in the agreement.InRajasthan, if a buyer refuses to accept agricultural produce or take delivery of goods within a week from date of intimation by the farmer, he will attract imprisonment between three and seven years, or a fine of up to five lakh rupees, or both.Regulation of essential commoditiesTheEssential Commodities Act, 1955empowers the central government to regulate the production, supply, distribution, storage, and trade of essential commodities, such as medicines, fertilisers, and foodstuff.  TheEssential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020empowers the central government to regulate the supply of certain food items, including cereals, pulses, potato, and onions, only under extraordinary circumstances such as war, famine, extraordinary price rise, and natural calamity of grave nature.ThestateBillsprovide that the respective state government will also have the powers to: (i) regulate the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities, and (ii) impose stock limits under extraordinary circumstances.  Such circumstances may include: (i) famine, (ii) price rise, (iii) natural calamity, or (iv) any other situation.Imposition of stock limitTheFarmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreementon Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 provides that any stock limit will not apply to the farming produce sold under a farming agreement.TheRajasthan Billamending the central Act empowers the state government to impose stock limits, under certain conditions, on any farm produce sold under a farming agreement.  These conditions are: (i) if there is a shortage of such farm produce in the state, or (ii) if there is a 25% increase in prices of such produce beyond the maximum price which was prevailing in the market (within two years before passing of such an order by the state government).Dispute Resolution Mechanism for FarmersThecentral Actsprovide that at first, all disputes must be referred to a Conciliation Board for resolution.  If the dispute remains unresolved by the Board after 30 days, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) may be approached for resolution.Further, parties can appeal to an Appellate Authority (presided by collector or additional collector) against decisions of the SDM.  Both SDM and Appellate Authority will be required to dispose a dispute within 30 days from the receipt of application.Instead of the dispute resolution mechanism specified under the central Acts, theRajasthan Billprovides that disputes will be resolved by APMCs, as per the provisions of the state APMC Act.Power of civil courtsThecentral Actsprohibit civil courts from adjudicating over disputes under the Acts.ThePunjabBill allows farmers to approach civil courts or avail other remedies under existing laws, in addition to those available under the central Acts.TheRajasthanBill provides that the jurisdiction of civil courts over disputes will be as per the state APMC Act and rules under it.  Currently, the state APMC Act prohibits civil courts from adjudicating over disputes related to trade allowance and contract farming agreements under the Act.Special provisions-TheBillsprovidethat the state APMC Act will continue to apply in the respective states, as they did prior to enactment of the central Acts (i.e. June 4, 2020).  Further, all notices issued by the central government or any authority under the central Acts will be suspended.  No punitive action will be taken for any violation of the provisions of the central Acts.Note: A market committee provides facilities for and regulates the marketing of agricultural produce in a designated market area.Have the state amendments come into force?The amendments proposed by states aim to address the concerns of farmers, but to a varying extent.  The Bills have not come into force yet as they await the Governors’ assent.   In addition, the Punjab and Rajasthan Bills also need the assent of the President, as they are inconsistent with the central Acts and seek to amend them.  Meanwhile, amidst the ongoing protests, many farmers’ organisations are in talks with the central government to seek redressal of their grievances and appropriate changes in the central farm laws.  It remains to be seen to what extent will such changes address the concerns of farmers.A version of this article first appeared on Firstpost on December 5, 2020.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»


ParliamentMonsoon Session of Parliament: What did the MPs ask the government?Anurag Vaishnav,Mridhula Raghavan- September 19, 2020Between the last time Parliament met in March 2020 and the ongoing Monsoon session (a period of nearly six months), thegovernment issued 941 notificationsacross sectors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  It also announced aRs 20 lakh crore economic packageto improve the state of the economy and provide relief to those affected by the nationwide lockdown.  In addition, the government also proposed long-term policy changes during this period in sectors such as agriculture, economy, and education.One of the key roles of a Member of Parliament (MP) is to hold the government accountable for its policies and actions.   Parliamentary questions are one of the key instruments MPs use to exercise this role.  Questions help MPs seek information from the government on matters of public importance and on the status of implementation of its policies and programmes.However, in view of the prevailing extraordinary situation due to COVID-19,both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have suspended their Question Hour, which would have allowed MPs to seek oral responses from Ministers and ask follow-up questions.  However, unstarred questions are admitted, for whichwritten answers are provided.This post provides an overview of the government’s response to some of the key questions raised by MPs during the first five days (September 14, 2020, to September 18, 2020) of the session.Unstarred questions in the Monsoon sessionA total of 1,950 unstarred questions have been asked in the first five days of the Monsoon session of the Parliament (1,150 questions in Lok Sabha and 800 questions in Rajya Sabha).  The Ministries in focus for the questions were: Health (154 questions), Agriculture (127 questions), Education (104 questions), Finance (96 questions), and Railways (80 questions).Questions ranged from the impact of the lockdown to strategy for vaccine procurement, to the status of the programmes announced to alleviate COVID related issues.  Besides COVID-19, there were questions around India-China trade, locust attacks, and custodial deaths.On COVID-19 testing and vaccine strategyTesting data and Health infrastructure:In response to a question, the government informed that India is conducting nearly 10-11 lakh tests every day and so far, a total of6.05 crore samples have been tested for COVID-19.  Nearly40% of the confirmed cases are persons between the age of 26-44.To improve health capacity, as of Sep 15, a total of 15,360 COVID treatment facilities have been created with:13,20,881 dedicated isolation bed (without oxygen support)2,32,516 oxygen supported isolation beds63,194 ICU beds (including 32,409 ventilator beds)Vaccine development:The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation has granted permission for conduct of clinical trials in the country to the following: (i) Bharat Biotech International Ltd. and Cadila Healthcare (these are in phase 1 and phase 2 of trials), and (ii) Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd (for vaccine developed by University of Oxford/AstraZeneca - this is in Phase 3, or advanced phase, of the trials).The government is also exploring thepossibility of cooperation with Russiafor advancing the COVID-19 vaccine in India.Health insurance:The Ministry noted that data on the number of healthcare workers who are infected by COVID-19 or who have lost lives during COVID duty is not maintained at the central level.  As per data from the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Insurance Package, atotal of 155 medical staff, including 64 doctors, have died due to COVID-19.  The scheme provides an insurance cover of Rs 50 lakh (including loss of life) to healthcare providers, including community health workers, who may have come in direct contact of COVID-19 patients and who may be at risk of being impacted by this.Under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme, atotal of 4.03 lakh hospitalisations have been registered (and authorised) towards the treatment of COVID-19.  Under Ayushman Bharat, the government provides health cover of five lakh rupees per family per year, for secondary and tertiary care to around 10.7 crore vulnerable families.Impact on other health services:In light of COVID-19, that there has been a19.4% drop in Hepatitis-B birth doses administered and a 31% drop in vaccination sessionsheld in health facilities and outreach sessions from April-June 2020 as compared to the same period last year.  Similarly, there has been adrop of 23.9% in institutional deliveryin the April-June 2020 quarter as compared to the same period last year.Impact of COVID-19 on Indian economyTrade:Responding to aquestion on the impact of COVID on exports, the government provided the following data:Overall exports declined by 25.4% during April-June 2020 (compared to the same period in 2019).   However, data for August 2020 shows a recovery in exports with the decline reducing to 12.7% (compared to August 2019).The export of goodsfrom Special Economic Zones (SEZs)was Rs 81,481 crore in the April-June 2020, 37% lower than the corresponding period in 2019 (Rs 1,30,129 crore).India-China trade:Members also raised questions on theimpact of COVID and the border issue with Ladakh on Indo-China trade.  The government held that it has taken steps to balance the trade with China by increasing exports and reducing import dependence. The trade deficit with China during April-June 2020 was USD 5.5 billion as compared to USD 13.1 billion during the same period last year.Table 1: Trade deficit with China (in billion dollars)Year2016-172017-182018-192019-20April - June 2019April - June 2020Export10.1713.3316.7516.614.165.53Import61.2876.3870.3165.2617.2611.01Total Trade71.4589.7187.0781.8721.4216.55Trade Deficit-51.11-63.04-53.56-48.64-13.1-5.48Sources: Unstarred Question No. 647, Lok Sabha, answered on September 16, 2020; PRS.With regard to theimport of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients(bulk drugs), bulk drugs account for nearly 63% of total pharmaceutical imports in India as per government data.  Of these, 68% of the bulk drugs imported by India in 2019-20 were from China.Civil aviation:The government informed that the revenue of Indian carriers was down by nearly 86% during April-June 2020, as compared to the same period last year.Table 2: Impact of COVID-19 on the civil aviation sectorIndicatorPreviouslyNow% ChangeRevenue relatedApril-June 2019April-June 2020Revenue of Indian carriersRs 25,517 croreRs 3,651 crore-85.7%Revenue of Air IndiaRs 7,066 croreRs 1,531 crore-78.3%Revenue of Airport OperatorsRs 5,745 croreRs 894 crore-84.4%Employment relatedMarch 31, 2020July 31, 2020Employment at airlines74,88769,589-7.1%Employment at airports67,76064,514-4.8%Employment at ground handling agencies37,72029,254-22.4%Employment at Cargo operators9,5558,538-10.6%Traffic relatedMarch-July 2019March-July 2020Total domestic traffic5,85,30,0381,20,84,952-79.4%Total international traffic93,45,46911,55,590-87.6%Sources: Unstarred Question No. 872, Lok Sabha, answered on September 17, 2020; PRS.Vande Bharat Mission:The Vande Bharat Mission was launched on May 7, 2020 to facilitate the return of Indian nationals stranded in various countries.  As of September 10, 2020, a total of13,74,237 Indians have returned to Indiaand the totalcost incurred for this effort was Rs 22.5 crore.  Of these, about 3 lakh people were working outside India.  The government stated that SWADES (Skilled Workers Arrival Database for Employment Support) initiative has been launched to conduct a skill mapping exercise of the returning citizens under the Vande Bharat Mission.Metro rail:Due to the lockdown, metro services in different cities came to a halt. This has led to aloss of Rs 1,609 crore for the Delhi Metro.  The loss incurred due to the halting of the other metros was: Rs 170 crore for Bengaluru Metro, Rs 90 crore for Lucknow Metro, Rs 80 crore for Chennai Metro, and Rs 34 crore for Kochi Metro.On Shramik special trains and Vande Bharat MissionRailways revenue:As of August 2020, thetotal revenue of Railwayswas Rs 41,844 crore, which is a decline of 42% over the corresponding period last year.  Of this, Rs 39,648 crore (95%) was freight revenue. During April to August 2020, the passenger traffic was 1.3% of the traffic in the corresponding period last year, and the freight traffic was 86.7% of the traffic seen in the corresponding period last year.  The total amount of refund made to passengers due to cancellation of trains booked till April 14, 2020 (for the journey period between March 22, 2020 and August 12, 2020) was Rs 3,371 crore.Special trains:Several members asked questions about the Shramik special trains, the number of migrant labourers who returned to their home states, and the loss of revenue to railways due to restrictions on travel and movement.  The governmentresponded that 4,621 shramik special trains were runfrom May 1 to August 31, 2020, which transported 63 lakh passengers across the country. Based on the data provided by states,97 persons passed awaywhile travelling on Shramik special trains (as of September 9, 2020). A total fare ofRs 433 crore was collected from the state governmentsfor running these special trains.The government also started other special trains (15 pairs of Rajdhani Express and special trains for examinations such as JEE and NEET).  Theaverage occupancy in these trains (from May 12 to August 31, 2020) was around 82%.On Migrant labourers, relief measures and MGNREGSAtotal of 1.05 crore migrant workers have returnedto their home state till now (maximum to Uttar Pradesh, followed by Bihar, West Bengal, and Rajasthan).  State-wise details are listed in the table below.Table 3: Number of migrant workers who have returned to home-state (as of September 14, 2020)StateWorkers who have returned to the stateUttar Pradesh32,49,638Bihar15,00,612West Bengal13,84,693Rajasthan13,08,130Madhya Pradesh7,53,581Jharkhand5,30,047Punjab5,15,642Assam4,26,441Kerala3,11,124Maharashtra1,82,990Tamil Nadu72,145Sources: Unstarred Question No. 197, Lok Sabha, answered on September 14, 2020; PRS.Responding to a question onwhether free grains under theAatmaNirbhar Scheme had reached the migrant workers, thegovernment statedthat no data on the number of migrants/stranded migrant persons across the country was available with the Department of Food Distribution and that the responsibility of identification of beneficiaries under this scheme was entrusted with states.  The government informed that states have indicated about 2.8 crore migrant worker beneficiaries.  As of August 31, 2020, food grains have been distributed to 2.67 crore of theidentifiedbeneficiaries for the months of June and July 2020.MGNREGS:On whether the migrant labourers have been provided jobs under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), thegovernment saidthat there is no provision to register a job cardholder categorized as a migrant labourer in the card in the scheme.  It stated that a total of 86.82 lakh new job cards have been issued this year so far, against a total of 64.96 lakh cards issued during the same period last year.  The employment provided under the scheme was nearly 100% higher for the months of June and July 2020, as compared to the corresponding months in 2019.  Thetotal demand (from April 2020 to September 12, 2020) for employment under the scheme was 22.5 crore persons, a 39% increase from 16.2 crore persons for 2019-20 (during the same period).EPF withdrawal:In March 2020, as part of the relief package, the governmentincreased the withdrawal limit from the Employee’s Provident Fund (EPF) accounts.  In areas declared to be affected by an epidemic or pandemic, members are permitted to withdraw three months’ salary or 75% of the amount lying in the member’s PF account, whichever is lesser. Thegovernment statedthat a total of Rs 39,403 crore has been withdrawn from EPF from March 25, 2020 to August 31, 2020.  The withdrawal was highest in the states of Maharashtra (Rs 7,838 crore), Karnataka (Rs 5,744 crore), and Tamil Nadu (Rs 4,985 crore).Other questionsLocust attack:Several members sought to know whether the locust attacks caused damage to crops and whether the government has provided any compensation to the affected farmers.   TheMinistry of Agriculture respondedthat the locust incursions were reported in the 10 states of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh.  The Rajasthan government has reported crop damage of 33% or more in nearly 3,400-hectare area.  Haryana has reported below 33% crop damage in 6,166-hectare area.  No damage was reported in Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, and Bihar.  On compensation, the government stated that pest attack has been notified as a natural disaster and states could provide relief under the State Disaster Response Fund.   However, no state government has reported any data yet on the distribution of relief to affected farmers.Functioning of virtual courts:The Ministry of Law and Justice informed that11,93,046 hearings were done by video conferencingbetween March 24, 2020 and July 15, 2020 by district and subordinate courts across India.  Further, it stated that to handle challenges related to COVID-19, the government has allocated nearly Rs 30 crore for providing video conferencing equipment and facilitating help desk counters for e-filing in various court complexesCustodial deaths:The government informed thata total of 1,697 persons diedunder police/ judicial custody, and a total of 112 cases were registered as encounter deaths (from April 2019 to March 2020).  State-wise details are noted below in Table 4 for select states (they comprise 75% of the total custodial and encounter deaths in 2019-20).  On whether the government is considering a legislation to prevent the torture of individuals by police and public officials, the Ministry of Home Affairs informed that police and public order are state subjects andthere is no proposal to bring a legislation in this regard.Table 4: Custodial deaths and Encounter deaths across select states (April 2019-March 2020)StateCustodial deathsEncounter deathsUttar Pradesh40326Madhya Pradesh1573West Bengal1221Bihar1105Punjab991Maharashtra943Rajasthan842Haryana771Tamil Nadu693Chhattisgarh5939Sources: Unstarred Question No. 292, Lok Sabha, answered on September 15, 2020; PRSParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»