One of the most politically contentious issues in recent times has been the government’s right to acquire land for ‘public purpose’.  Increasingly, farmers are refusing to part with their land without adequate compensation, the most recent example being the agitation in Uttar Pradesh over the acquisition of land for the Yamuna Express Highway. Presently, land acquisition in India is governed by the Land Acquisition Act, an archaic law passed more than a century ago in 1894.  According to the Act, the government has the right to acquire private land without the consent of the land owners if the land is acquired for a “public purpose” project (such as development of towns and village sites, building of schools, hospitals and housing and state run corporations).  The land owners get only the current price value of the land as compensation.  The key provision that has triggered most of the discontent is the one that allows the government to acquire land for private companies if it is for a “public purpose” project.  This has led to conflict over issues of compensation, rehabilitation of displaced people and the type of land that is being acquired. The UPA government introduced the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill in conjunction with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill on December 6, 2007 in the Lok Sabha and referred them to the Standing Committee on Rural Development for scrutiny.  The Committee submitted its report on October 21, 2008 but the Bills lapsed at the end of the 14th Lok Sabha.  The government is planning to introduce revised versions of the Bills.  The following paragraphs discuss the lapsed Bills to give some idea of the government’s perspective on the issue while analysing the lacunae in the Bills. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2007 redefined “public purpose” to allow land acquisition only for defence purposes, infrastructure projects, or any project useful to the general public where 70% of the land had already been purchased from willing sellers through the free market.  It prohibited land acquisition for companies unless they had already purchased 70% of the required land.  The Bill also made it mandatory for the government to conduct a social impact assessment if land acquisition resulted in displacement of 400 families in the plains or 200 families in the hills or tribal areas.  The compensation was to be extended to tribals and individuals with tenancy rights under state laws.  The compensation was based on many factors such as market rates, the intended use of the land, and the value of standing crop.  A Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes Settlement Authority was to be established to adjudicate disputes. The Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2007 sought to provide for benefits and compensation to people displaced by land acquisition or any other involuntary displacements.  The Bill created project-specific authorities to formulate, implement and monitor the rehabilitation process.  It also outlined minimum benefits for displaced families such as land, house, monetary compensation, skill training and preference for jobs.  A grievance redressal system was also provided for. Although the Bills were a step in the right direction, many issues still remained unresolved.  Since the Land Acquisition Bill barred the civil courts from entertaining any disputes related to land acquisition, it was unclear whether there was a mechanism by which a person could challenge the qualification of a project as “public purpose”.  Unlike the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005, the Bill did not specify the type of land that could be acquired (such as waste and barren lands).  The Bill made special provision for land taken in the case of ‘urgency’.  However, it did not define the term urgency, which could lead to confusion and misuse of the term. The biggest loop-hole in the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill was the use of non-binding language.  Take for example Clause 25, which stated that “The Government may, by notification, declare any area…as a resettlement area.” Furthermore, Clause 36(1) stated that land for land “shall be allotted…if Government land is available.”  The government could effectively get away with not providing many of the benefits listed in the Bill.  Also, most of the safeguards and benefits were limited to families affected by large-scale displacements (400 or more families in the plains and 200 or more families in the hills and tribal areas).  The benefits for affected families in case of smaller scale displacements were not clearly spelt out.  Lastly, the Bill stated that compensation to displaced families should be borne by the requiring body (body which needs the land for its projects).  Who would bear the expenditure of rehabilitation in case of natural disasters remained ambiguous. If India is to attain economic prosperity, the government needs to strike a balance between the need for development and protecting the rights of people whose land is being acquired. Kaushiki Sanyal The article was published in Sahara Time (Issue dated September 4, 2010, page 36)

India is one of the fastest growing aviation markets in the world.  Its domestic traffic makes up 69% of the total airline traffic in South Asia.  India’s airport capacity is expected to handle 1 billion trips annually by 2023. The Ministry of Civil Aviation is responsible for formulating national aviation policies and programmes.  Today, Lok Sabha will discuss and vote upon the budget of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In light of this, we discuss key issues with the aviation sector in India. 

The aviation sector came under severe financial stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. After air travel was suspended in March 2020, airline operators in India reported losses worth more than Rs 19,500 crore while airports reported losses worth more than Rs 5,120 crore. However, several airline companies were under financial stress before the pandemic affected passenger travel. For instance, in the past 15 years, seventeen airlines have exited the market.  Out of those, two airlines, Air Odisha Aviation Pvt Ltd and Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd exited the market in 2020.  Air India has been reporting consistent losses over the past four years. All other major private airlines in India such as Indigo and Spice Jet faced losses in 2018-19.  

Figure 1: Operating profit/loss of major airlines in India (in Rs crore)

 image

Note: Vistara Airlines commenced operations in 2015, while Air Asia began in 2014; Negative values indicate operating loss.
Source: Unstarred Question 1812 answered on August 4, 2021, and Unstarred Question 1127 answered on September 21, 2020; Rajya Sabha; PRS.

Sale of Air India

Air India has accounted for the biggest expenditure head of the Ministry of Civil Aviation since 2011-12.  Between 2009-10 and 2020-21, the government spent Rs 1,22,542 crore on Air India through budgeted allocations.  In October 2021, the sale of Air India to Talace Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Tata Sons Pvt Ltd, was approved.  The bid for Air India was finalised at Rs 18,000 crore.  

Up to January 2020, Air India had accumulated debt worth Rs 60,000 crore.  The central government is repaying this debt in the financial year 2021-22.  After the finalisation of the sale, the government allocated roughly Rs 71,000 crore for expenses related to Air India. 

In addition to loan repayment, in 2021-22, the government will provide Air India with a fresh loan (Rs 4,500 crore) and grants (Rs 1,944 crore) to recover from the shock of Covid-19.  To pay for the medical benefits of retired employees of Air India, a recurring expense of Rs 165 crore will be borne by the central government each year.   

In 2022-23, Rs 9,260 crore is allocated towards servicing the debt of AIAHL (see Table 1). AIAHL is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) formed by the government to hold the assets and liabilities of Air India while the process of its sale takes place. 

Table 1: Breakdown of expenditure on Air India (in Rs crore)

Major Head

2020-21 Actual

2021-22 RE

2022-23 BE

% change from 2021-22 RE to 2022-23 BE

Equity infusion in AIAHL

-

62,057

-

-100%

Debt servicing of AIAHL

2,184

2,217

9,260

318%

Medical benefit to retired employees

-

165

165

0%

Loans to AI

-

4,500

-

-100%

Grants for cash losses during Covid-19

-

1,944

-

-100%

Total

2,184

70,883

9,425

-87%

           

Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; AAI: Airports Authority of India; AIAHL – Air India Asset Holding Limited; AI – Air India. Percentage change is from RE 2021-22 to BE 2022-23. 
Source: Demands for Grants 2022-23, Ministry of Civil Aviation; PRS.

Privatisation of Airports

Airports Authority of India (AAI) is responsible for creating, upgrading, maintaining and managing civil aviation infrastructure in the country.   As on June 23, 2020, it operates and manages 137 airports in the country.   Domestic air traffic has more than doubled from around 61 million passengers in 2013-14 to around 137 million in 2019-20.  International passenger traffic has grown from 47 million in 2013-14 to around 67 million in 2019-20, registering a growth of over 6% per annum.  As a result, airports in India are witnessing rising levels of congestion.  Most major airports are operating at 85% to 120% of their handling capacity.   In response to this, the government has decided to privatise some airports to address the problem of congestion.  

AAI has leased out eight of its airports through Public Private Partnership (PPP) for operation, management and development on long term lease basis.  Six of these airports namely, Ahmedabad, Jaipur, Lucknow, Guwahati, Thiruvananthapuram, and Mangaluru have been leased out to M/s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) for 50 years (under PPP).  The ownership of these airports remains with AAI and the operations will be back with AAI after the concession period is over.  The Standing Committee on Transport (2021) had noted that the government expects to have 24 PPP airports by 2024.  

Figure 2: Allocation towards AAI (in Rs crore)

image

Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; AAI – Airports Authority of India; IEBR – Internal and Extra-Budgetary Resources;
Source: Demand for Grant documents, Ministry of Civil Aviation; PRS. 

The Committee also noted a structural issue in the way airport concessions are given.  As of now, entities that bid the highest amount are given the rights to operate an airport.  This leads them to pass on the high charge to airline operators.  This system does not consider the actual cost of the services and leads to an arbitrary increase in the cost of airline operators.  The Ministry sees the role of AAI in future policy issues to include providing high quality, safe and customer-oriented airport and air navigation services.  In 2022-23, the government has allocated Rs 150 crore to AAI, which is almost ten times higher than the budget estimates of 2021-22. 

Regional Connectivity Scheme (RCS-UDAN)

The top 15 airports in the country account for about 83% of the total passenger traffic.  These airports are also close to their saturation limit, and hence the Ministry notes that there is a need to add more Tier-II and Tier-III cities to the aviation network.  The Regional Connectivity Scheme was introduced in 2016 to stimulate regional air connectivity and make air travel affordable to the masses.  The budget for this scheme is Rs 4,500 crore over five years from 2016-17 to 2021-22.   As of December 16, 2021, 46% of this amount has been released.  In 2022-23, the scheme has been allocated Rs 601 crore, which is 60% lower than the revised estimates of 2021-22 (Rs 994 crore).  

Under the scheme, airline operators are incentivised to operate on under-served routes by providing them with viability gap funding and airport fee waivers.  AAI, which is the implementing agency of this scheme, has sanctioned 948 routes to boost regional connectivity.  As of January 31, 2022, 43% of these routes have been operationalised.  As per the Ministry, lack of availability of land and creation of regional infrastructure has led to delays in the scheme.  Issues with obtaining licenses and unsustainable operation of awarded routes also contribute to the delay.  As per the Ministry, these issues, along with the setback faced due to the pandemic acted as major obstacles for the effective utilisation of funds.

Figure 3: Expenditure on Regional Connectivity Scheme (in Rs crore)

image
 Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; 
 Source: Demand for Grants documents, Ministry of Civil Aviation; PRS.

Potential of air cargo 

The Standing Committee on Transport (2021) had noted India’s cargo industry’s huge potential with respect to its geographical location, its growing economy, and its growth in domestic and international trade in the last decade.  In 2019-20, all Indian airports together handled 3.33 million metric tonnes (MMT) of freight.  This is much lower than the cargo handled by Hong Kong (4.5 MMT), Memphis (4.8 MMT), and Shanghai (3.7 MMT), which are the top three airports in terms of the volume of freight handled.  The Standing Committee on Transport (2021) has noted inadequate infrastructure as a major bottleneck in developing the country’s air cargo sector.  To reduce such bottleneck, it recommended the Ministry to establish dedicated cargo airports, and automate air cargo procedures and information systems to streamline redundant processes.   

The Committee has also highlighted that the Open Sky Policy enables foreign cargo carriers to freely operate cargo services to and from any airports in India having customs/immigration facilities.  They account for 90-95% of the total international cargo carried to and from the country.  On the other hand, Indian air cargo operators face discriminatory practices and regulatory impediments for operating international cargo flights in foreign countries.  The Committee urged the Ministry to provide a level-playing field for Indian air cargo operators and to ensure equal opportunities for them.  The Ministry revised the Open Sky Policy in December 2020.   Under the revised policy, the operations of foreign ad hoc and pure non-scheduled freighter charter service flights have been restricted to six airports - Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Hyderabad, and Mumbai. 

Rising cost of Aviation Turbine Fuel

The cost of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) forms around 40% of the total operating cost of airlines and impacts their financial viability.  ATF prices have been consistently rising over the past years, placing stress on the balance sheets of airline companies.  As per recent news reports, airfares are expected to rise as the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is making ATF costlier.

ATF attracts VAT which is variable across states and does not have a provision for input tax credit.  High rates of aviation fuel coupled with high VAT rates are adversely affecting airline companies.

Table 2: Expenditure on ATF by airlines over the years (in Rs crore)

Year

National Carriers

Private Domestic Airlines

2016-17

         7,286 

       10,506 

2017-18

         8,563 

       13,596 

2018-19

       11,788 

       20,662 

2019-20

       11,103 

       23,354 

2020-21

         3,047 

         7,452 

Source: Unstarred Question 2581, Rajya Sabha; PRS. 

The Ministry, in January 2020,  has reduced the tax burden on ATF by eliminating fuel throughput charges that were levied by airport operators at all airports across India.  Central excise on ATF was reduced from 14% to 11% w.e.f. October 11, 2018.  State governments have also reduced VAT/Sales Tax on ATF drawn on RCS airports to 1% or less for 10 years.  For non-RCS-UDAN operations, various state governments have reduced VAT/Sales Tax on ATF to within 5%.  The Standing Committee on Transport (2021) has recommended ATF to be included within the ambit of GST and that applicable GST should not exceed 12% on ATF with full Input Tax Credit. 

For more details, please refer to the Demand for Grants Analysis of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, 2022-23.