Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open on December 1, 2024. Sign up here to be notified. Last date for submitting the applications is December 21, 2024.
On March 14, 2022 Rajya Sabha discussed the working of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER). During the discussion, several issues around budgetary allocation, implementation of schemes and connectivity with the North Eastern Region were discussed. The Ministry of DoNER is responsible for matters relating to the planning, execution and monitoring of development schemes and projects in the North Eastern Region. In this blog post, we analyse the 2022-23 budgetary allocations for the Ministry and discuss related issues.
A new scheme named PM-DevINE announced to boost infrastructure and social development
In 2022-23, the Ministry has seen a 5% increase in allocation from the revised estimates of 2021-22. The Ministry has been allocated Rs 2,800 crore which will be used for various development schemes, such as the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme and North East Road Sector Development Scheme. A scheme-wise break-up of the budget allocation for the Ministry is given below in Table 1.
One of the key highlights of the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech was the announcement of a new scheme named the Prime Minister’s Development Initiative for North East (PM-DevINE). It will be implemented through the North East Council (nodal agency for the economic and social development of the North Eastern Region). PM-DevINE will fund infrastructure and social development projects in areas such as road connectivity, health, and agriculture. The scheme will not replace or subsume existing central sector or centrally sponsored schemes. The Scheme will be given an initial allocation of Rs 1,500 crore.
Table 1: Break-up of allocation to the Ministry of DoNER (in Rs crore)
|
Major Heads |
2020-21 Actuals |
2021-22 BE |
2021-22 RE |
2022-23 BE |
% change from 2021-22 RE to 2022-23 BE |
|
North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme |
446 |
675 |
674 |
1,419 |
111% |
|
Schemes of North East Council |
567 |
585 |
585 |
702 |
20% |
|
North East Road Sector Development Scheme |
416 |
696 |
674 |
496 |
-26% |
|
Central pool of resources for North East and Sikkim |
342 |
581 |
581 |
- |
- |
|
Others |
270 |
322 |
344 |
241 |
-30% |
|
Total |
1,854 |
2,658 |
2,658 |
2,800 |
5% |
Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; Schemes for North East Council includes Special Development Projects.
Sources: Demand No. 23 of Union Budget Documents 2022-23; PRS.
Allocation towards capital outlay less than demand
The Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2022) noted that the amount allocated at the budget stage in 2022-23 (Rs 660 crore) was 17% less than the demand by the Ministry (Rs 794 crore). Capital expenditure includes capital outlay which leads to the creation of assets such as schools, hospitals, and roads and bridges. The Committee observed that this may severely affect the implementation of several projects and schemes that require capital outlay. It recommended the Ministry to take up this matter with the Finance Ministry and demand additional assistance at the revised stage of the 2022-23 financial year.
Underutilisation of funds over the years
Since 2011-12 (barring 2016-17), the Ministry has not been able to utilise the funds allocated to it at the budgeted stage (See Figure 1). For instance, in 2020-21, fund utilisation in case of the North East Road Sector Development Scheme was 52%, whereas only 34% of funds were utilised under the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (for infrastructure projects relating to water supply, power, connectivity, social infrastructure). Key reasons for underspending highlighted by the Ministry include late receipt of project proposals and non-receipt of utilisation certificates from state governments.
Figure 1: Underutilisation of funds by the Ministry since 2011-12
Note: Revised Estimate has been used as the Actual Expenditure for 2021-22.
Sources: Union Budget Documents (2011-12 to 2022-23); PRS.
Delay in project completion
The Ministry implements several schemes for infrastructural projects such as roads and bridges. The progress of the certain schemes has been inadequate. The Standing Committee (2022) observed that the physical progress of many road sector projects under the North East Road Sector Development Scheme is either at zero or in single digit percent in spite of release of the amount for the project. Similarly, projects under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council (autonomous district council in Assam) and Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (construction of roads, bridges, and construction of schools and water supply projects in the North Eastern Region) have seen inadequate progress.
Need to address declining forest cover
The Standing Committee (2021) has also recommended the Ministry of DoNER to work towards preserving forest cover. The Committee took note of the declining forest cover in the North East India. As per the India State of Forest Report (2021), states showing major loss of forest cover from 2019 to 2021 are: (i) Arunachal Pradesh (loss of 257 sq km of forest cover), (ii) Manipur (249 sq km), (iii) Nagaland (235 sq km), (iv) Mizoram (186 sq km), and (v) Meghalaya (73 sq km). The loss of forest cover may be attributed to shifting cultivation, cutting down of trees, natural calamities, anthropogenic (environmental pollution) pressure, and developmental activities. The Committee recommended that various measures to protect the forest and environment must be given priority and should implemented within the stipulated timeline. It also suggested the Ministry to: (i) carry out regular plantation drives to increase forest cover/density, and (ii) accord priority towards the ultimate goal of preserving and protecting the forests under various centrally sponsored initiatives.
Key issues raised by Members during discussion in Rajya Sabha
The discussion on the working of the Ministry of DoNER took place in Rajya Sabha on March 14, 2022. One of the issues highlighted by members was about the Ministry not having its own line Department. This leads to the Ministry being dependent on the administrative strength of the states for implementation of projects. Another issue highlighted by several members was the lack of connectivity of the region through railways and road networks which hampers the economic growth of region. The DoNER Minister in his response to the House assured the members that the central government is making continuous efforts towards improving connectivity to the North East region through roads, railways, waterways, and telecommunication.
Allocation by Union Ministries to the North East
Union Ministries allocate 10% of their budget allocation for the North East (See Figure 2 for fund allocation and utilisation). The Ministry of DoNER is the nodal Ministry that monitors and keeps track of the allocation done by various Ministries. In 2022-23, Rs 76,040 crore has been allocated by all the Ministries for the North Eastern region. The allocation has increased by 11% from the revised estimate of 2021-22 (Rs 68,440 crore). In 2019-20 and 2021-21 the actual expenditure towards North Eastern areas was lower than budget estimates by 18% and 19% respectively.
Figure 2: Budgetary allocation by all Union Ministries for the North East (amount in Rs crore)
Source: Report No. 239: Demand for Grants (2022-23) of Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Standing Committee on Home Affairs; PRS.
A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
