Centre-State financial relations: India

From Indpaedia
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "===The Jiah Khan suicide (2013)=== Experts pick holes in Jiah suicide abetment case Vijay V Singh, Rebecca Samervel & Bharati Dubey, TNN | Jun 13, 2013 [http://timesofindia....")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
===The Jiah Khan suicide (2013)===
+
{| class="wikitable"
Experts pick holes in Jiah suicide abetment case
+
|-
Vijay V Singh, Rebecca Samervel & Bharati Dubey, TNN | Jun 13, 2013
+
|colspan="0"|<div style="font-size:100%">
 +
This is a collection of newspaper articles selected for the excellence of their content.<br/>You can help by converting it into an encyclopaedia-style entry,<br />deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.<br/>Please also put categories, paragraph indents, headings and sub-headings,<br/>and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.<br/>
 +
See [[examples]] and a tutorial.</div>
 +
|}
 +
[[Category:India|S]]
 +
[[Category: Economy-Industry-Resources|S]]
 +
[[Category:Government|S]]
 +
[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
  
[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Experts-pick-holes-in-Jiah-suicide-abetment-case/articleshow/20565710.cms  The Times of India]
 
  
 +
Central grants to states: India
 +
Centre kind to some, stingy with others
 +
Odisha Tops Central Grants List
 +
Subodh Varma TIMES INSIGHT GROUP
 +
[http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=CAP/2013/06/13&PageLabel=13&EntityId=Ar01300&ViewMode=HTML  The Times of India]
 +
[[File: grants to states.jpg|Special category states like J&K and the north east get considerably more per capita|frame|500px]]
 +
Every year, chief ministers make a beeline to the Planning Commission arguing for more allocation, bemoaning the cash crunch that state governments are facing.
  
====The Times of India’s view====
+
So, how much funds does the central government actually give to the states?
On the face of it, this seems to be a case of a relationship gone terribly sour. The police are not here to impose morality; their job is to enforce the law. And by arresting (her boyfriend) Suraj Pancholi they seem to have confused their role. Unless they have specific evidence to show that Pancholi actively instigated Jiah's suicide, they have no business arresting the 22-year old or charging him with abetment to suicide.
+
  
The court should give him bail right away. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that a mere lovers' tiff cannot be sufficient to invoke such a serious charge. The apex court should also frame strong guidelines to ensure that such situations are not used by police as an excuse for harassment or as a money-making opportunity.
+
Amounts vary according to the population of the states. So, comparing annual central grants may be misleading. For example, Tamil Nadu got over Rs 34,000 crore from the Centre between 2007-08 and 2011-12, while Kerala got less than half of that– Rs 15,000 crore. But that’s understandable – Kerala’s population is less than half of Tamil Nadu’s.  
====Lawyers’views====
+
  
Lawyer Ameet Naik handled the Navin Nischol case in which the actor was acquitted despite his wife leaving behind a suicide note blaming him (in this case, legal experts are not even sure whether Jiah Khan's letter can be treated as a suicide note). "A mere letter is not reason enough to arrest him. In the Navin Nischol case, there was a suicide note but the prosecution was unable to establish real mens rea (intention) in abetment. There could be several other reasons for the suicide. Police needs to find if there is circumstantial evidence before making such arrests," Naik said.
+
This problem is taken care of by looking at per capita grants from the Centre, that is, grants divided by population. Among major states, this throws up a strange and counter-intuitive picture. While some of the poorest states like Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are top receivers of central funds, other poor or backward states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal are among the lowest beneficiaries.  
  
+
Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, Uttar Pradesh got just Rs 775 per head per year as grants from the Centre – the lowest among all major states. West Bengal, another populous and poverty stricken state, got Rs 984 per head per year.  
Referring to the allegations of abuse, criminal lawyer Adhik Shirodkar questioned how they could be proved with the victim dead. "A suicide note helps police give direction to the probe and establish the cause of death. But it can't be the sole basis for arresting someone."
+
  
Many lawyers, who have worked on similar cases, called for guidelines to control police action in such cases. "This type of action may also lead to questions about the police's intentions in going after people without any real evidence," a criminal lawyer said.
+
Odisha topped the list among major states, getting Rs 1,688 – more than double of what UP got. Jharkhand (Rs 1,566) and Chhattisgarh (Rs 1,540) too got relatively more grants from the Centre. The national average for all states is Rs 1,423. But that includes transfers to states in the northeast, Jammu & Kashmir and other smaller states.  
 +
 
 +
Broadly, total grants from the Centre to states fall in three categories – state plan schemes provided by the Planning Commission, central plan schemes and sponsored programmes provided by the central government, and non-plan grants provided by the Finance Commission, explains Subrat Das, head of New Delhi-based thinktank Center for Budget and Accountability (CBGA).
 +
 
 +
“Budgets approved for different states in a centrallysponsored scheme depend on priorities of the central ministries, assessment of needs across states, and ability and willingness of the state to contribute matching grants,” Das said. This could be one reason for the strange fact that some poor states seem to be getting more than others.
 +
 
 +
“Grants recommended by the Finance Commissions have been predominantly in the nature of general purpose grants meeting the difference between the assessed expenditure on the non-plan revenue account of each state and the projected revenue, including the share of a state in central taxes,” says Praveen Jha, professor of economics, and Atul K Singh, a research student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.
 +
 
 +
Although ‘backwardness’ of a state was considered as a parameter for the first time in the Sixth Finance Commission (1973), the ‘gap-filling’ approach continued. It was only in recent finance commissions that some consideration to educational or health related parameters was given.

Revision as of 08:52, 13 June 2013

This is a collection of newspaper articles selected for the excellence of their content.
You can help by converting it into an encyclopaedia-style entry,
deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.
Please also put categories, paragraph indents, headings and sub-headings,
and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.

See examples and a tutorial.


Central grants to states: India Centre kind to some, stingy with others Odisha Tops Central Grants List Subodh Varma TIMES INSIGHT GROUP The Times of India

Special category states like J&K and the north east get considerably more per capita

Every year, chief ministers make a beeline to the Planning Commission arguing for more allocation, bemoaning the cash crunch that state governments are facing.

So, how much funds does the central government actually give to the states?

Amounts vary according to the population of the states. So, comparing annual central grants may be misleading. For example, Tamil Nadu got over Rs 34,000 crore from the Centre between 2007-08 and 2011-12, while Kerala got less than half of that– Rs 15,000 crore. But that’s understandable – Kerala’s population is less than half of Tamil Nadu’s.

This problem is taken care of by looking at per capita grants from the Centre, that is, grants divided by population. Among major states, this throws up a strange and counter-intuitive picture. While some of the poorest states like Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh are top receivers of central funds, other poor or backward states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal are among the lowest beneficiaries.

Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, Uttar Pradesh got just Rs 775 per head per year as grants from the Centre – the lowest among all major states. West Bengal, another populous and poverty stricken state, got Rs 984 per head per year.

Odisha topped the list among major states, getting Rs 1,688 – more than double of what UP got. Jharkhand (Rs 1,566) and Chhattisgarh (Rs 1,540) too got relatively more grants from the Centre. The national average for all states is Rs 1,423. But that includes transfers to states in the northeast, Jammu & Kashmir and other smaller states.

Broadly, total grants from the Centre to states fall in three categories – state plan schemes provided by the Planning Commission, central plan schemes and sponsored programmes provided by the central government, and non-plan grants provided by the Finance Commission, explains Subrat Das, head of New Delhi-based thinktank Center for Budget and Accountability (CBGA).

“Budgets approved for different states in a centrallysponsored scheme depend on priorities of the central ministries, assessment of needs across states, and ability and willingness of the state to contribute matching grants,” Das said. This could be one reason for the strange fact that some poor states seem to be getting more than others.

“Grants recommended by the Finance Commissions have been predominantly in the nature of general purpose grants meeting the difference between the assessed expenditure on the non-plan revenue account of each state and the projected revenue, including the share of a state in central taxes,” says Praveen Jha, professor of economics, and Atul K Singh, a research student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.

Although ‘backwardness’ of a state was considered as a parameter for the first time in the Sixth Finance Commission (1973), the ‘gap-filling’ approach continued. It was only in recent finance commissions that some consideration to educational or health related parameters was given.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox