The Finance Commission is a constitutional body formed by the President of India to give suggestions on centre-state financial relations. The 15th Finance Commission is required to submit two reports. The first report will consist of recommendations for the financial year 2020-21. The final report with recommendations for the 2021-26 period will be submitted by October 30, 2020. In this post, we explain the key recommendations of the report.
What is the amount of tax devolution to the states, and how is it being calculated?
The Finance Commission uses certain criteria when deciding the devolution to states. For example, income distance criterion has been used by the 14th and 15th Finance Commissions. Under this criterion, states with lower per capita income would be given a higher share to maintain equity among states. Another example is Demographic Performance criterion which has been introduced by the 15th Finance Commission. The Demographic Performance criterion is to reward efforts made by states in controlling their population.
The 15th Finance Commission used the following criteria while determining the share of states: (i) 45% for the income distance, (ii) 15% for the population in 2011, (iii) 15% for the area, (iv) 10% for forest and ecology, (v) 12.5% for demographic performance, and (vi) 2.5% for tax effort. For 2020-21, the Commission has recommended a total devolution of Rs 8,55,176 crore to the states, which is 41% of the divisible pool of taxes. This is 1% lower than the percentage recommended by the 14th Finance Commission.
Table 1 below compares the new criteria with the criteria recommended by the 14th Finance Commission.
Table 1: Criteria for devolution (2020-21)
|
Criteria |
14th FC 2015-20 |
15th FC 2020-21 |
|
Income Distance |
50.0 |
45.0 |
|
Population 1971 |
17.5 |
- |
|
Population 2011 |
10.0 |
15.0 |
|
Area |
15.0 |
15.0 |
|
Forest Cover |
7.5 |
- |
|
Forest and Ecology |
- |
10.0 |
|
Demographic Performance |
- |
12.5 |
|
Tax Effort |
- |
2.5 |
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
Sources: Report for the year 2020-21, 15th Finance Commission; PRS.
Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have received the largest devolutions for 2020-21, receiving Rs 1,53,342 crore, and Rs 86,039 crore respectively. Karnataka and Kerala saw the largest decreases in the share of the divisible pool with a decrease of 0.49% and 0.25% respectively. Table 2 below displays the state-wise breakdown of the share in the divisible pool and the total devolution.
Table 3: Share of states in the centre’s taxes
|
State |
14th Finance Commission |
15th Finance Commission |
Devolution for FY 2020-2021 |
||
|
Share out of 42% |
Share in divisible pool |
Share out of 41% |
Share in divisible pool |
(In Rs crore) |
|
|
Andhra Pradesh |
1.81 |
4.31 |
1.69 |
4.11 |
35,156 |
|
Arunachal Pradesh |
0.58 |
1.38 |
0.72 |
1.76 |
15,051 |
|
Assam |
1.39 |
3.31 |
1.28 |
3.13 |
26,776 |
|
Bihar |
4.06 |
9.67 |
4.13 |
10.06 |
86,039 |
|
Chhattisgarh |
1.29 |
3.07 |
1.4 |
3.42 |
29,230 |
|
Goa |
0.16 |
0.38 |
0.16 |
0.39 |
3,301 |
|
Gujarat |
1.3 |
3.1 |
1.39 |
3.4 |
29,059 |
|
Haryana |
0.46 |
1.1 |
0.44 |
1.08 |
9,253 |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
0.3 |
0.71 |
0.33 |
0.8 |
6,833 |
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
0.78 |
1.86 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Jharkhand |
1.32 |
3.14 |
1.36 |
3.31 |
28,332 |
|
Karnataka |
1.98 |
4.71 |
1.49 |
3.65 |
31,180 |
|
Kerala |
1.05 |
2.5 |
0.8 |
1.94 |
16,616 |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
3.17 |
7.55 |
3.23 |
7.89 |
67,439 |
|
Maharashtra |
2.32 |
5.52 |
2.52 |
6.14 |
52,465 |
|
Manipur |
0.26 |
0.62 |
0.29 |
0.72 |
6,140 |
|
Meghalaya |
0.27 |
0.64 |
0.31 |
0.77 |
6,542 |
|
Mizoram |
0.19 |
0.45 |
0.21 |
0.51 |
4,327 |
|
Nagaland |
0.21 |
0.5 |
0.23 |
0.57 |
4,900 |
|
Odisha |
1.95 |
4.64 |
1.9 |
4.63 |
39,586 |
|
Punjab |
0.66 |
1.57 |
0.73 |
1.79 |
15,291 |
|
Rajasthan |
2.31 |
5.5 |
2.45 |
5.98 |
51,131 |
|
Sikkim |
0.15 |
0.36 |
0.16 |
0.39 |
3,318 |
|
Tamil Nadu |
1.69 |
4.02 |
1.72 |
4.19 |
35,823 |
|
Telangana |
1.02 |
2.43 |
0.87 |
2.13 |
18,241 |
|
Tripura |
0.27 |
0.64 |
0.29 |
0.71 |
6,063 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
7.54 |
17.95 |
7.35 |
17.93 |
1,53,342 |
|
Uttarakhand |
0.44 |
1.05 |
0.45 |
1.1 |
9,441 |
|
West Bengal |
3.08 |
7.33 |
3.08 |
7.52 |
64,301 |
|
Total |
42 |
100 |
41 |
100 |
8,55,176 |
Sources: Reports of 14th and 15th Finance Commission; PRS.
What are the various grants recommended by the 15th Finance Commission?
The Terms of Reference of the Finance Commission require it to recommend grants-in-aid to the States. These grants include: (i) revenue deficit grants, (ii) grants to local bodies, and (iii) disaster management grants.
14 states are estimated to face a revenue deficit post-devolution. To make up for this deficit, the Commission has recommended revenue deficit grants worth Rs 74,341 crore to these 14 states. Additionally, three states (Karnataka, Mizoram, and Telangana) have received special grants worth Rs 6,674 crore. The special grants are being given to compensate for a decline in the sum of tax devolution and revenue deficit grants in 2020-21 as compared to 2019-20.
The Commission has recommended a total of Rs 90,000 crore for grants to the local bodies in 2020-21. This amounts to an increase over the Rs 87,352 crore allocated for 2019-20 for the same. The new allocation is 4.31% of the divisible pool. Of this sum, Rs 60,750 crore has been recommended for rural local bodies, and Rs 29,250 crore for urban local bodies. These grants will be made available to all three tiers of Panchayat- village, block, and district.
To promote local-level mitigation activities, the Commission has recommended the setting up of National and State Disaster Management Funds. Recommended grants for the State Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 28,983 crore, while the allocation for the National Disaster Risk Management Fund is Rs 12,390 crore.
Apart from these, guidelines for performance-based grants and sector-specific grants have been outlined. The Commission has recommended a grant of Rs 7,375 crore for nutrition in 2020-21. Sectors for which sector-specific grants will be provided in the final report include: (i) nutrition, (ii) health, (iii) pre-primary education, (iv) judiciary, and (v) railways.
For more details, please see our summary of the report.
The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha recently and is scheduled to be passed in this Winter Session. The Bill amends the Arms Act, 1959 which deals with the regulation of arms in India. The Act defines arms to include firearms, swords, and anti-aircraft missiles. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill noted that law enforcement agencies have indicated a growing connection between the possession of illegal firearms and criminal activities. In this context, the Bill seeks to reduce the number of firearms allowed per person, and increases punishments for certain offences under the Act. The Bill also introduces new categories of offences. In this post, we explain key provisions of the Bill.
How many firearms are allowed per person?
The Arms Act, 1959 allows a person to have three licenced firearms. The Bill proposes to reduce this to one firearm per person. This would also include any firearms that may have been given as inheritance or as an heirloom. Excess firearms must be deposited at the nearest police station or licensed arms dealer within one year of the passing of the Bill. The Bill also extends the duration of a licence from three years to five years.
Note that in 2017, 63,219 firearms were seized from across India under the Arms Act, 1959. Out of these, only 3,525 (5.5%) were licenced firearms. Further, 36,292 cases involving firearms were registered under the Act in 2017, of which only 419 (1.1%) cases involved licenced firearms. [1] This trend persisted even at the level of specific crimes, where only 8.5% of the murders committed using firearms involved licenced firearms. [2]
What changes are being made to existing offences?
Presently, the Act bans manufacture, sale, use, transfer, conversion, testing or proofing of firearms without license. The Bill additionally prohibits obtaining or procuring un-licensed firearms, and the conversion of one category of firearms to another without a license. The latter includes any modifications done to enhance the performance of a firearm.
The Bill also proposes increased punishments for several existing offences. For example, the Act specifies the punishment for: (i) dealing in un-licensed firearms, including their manufacture, procurement, sale, transfer, conversion, (ii) the shortening or conversion of a firearm without a licence, and (iii) import or export of banned firearms. The punishment for these offences currently is between three years and seven years, along with a fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment to seven years and the maximum to life imprisonment.
The Act also punishes dealing in prohibited firearms (such as automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) without a license, with imprisonment between seven years and life imprisonment, along with fine. The Bill increases the minimum punishment from seven years to 10 years. Additionally, the punishment for cases in which the usage of prohibited arms results in the death of a person has been revised. The punishment has been updated from the existing punishment of death penalty to allow for death penalty or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
Are there any new offences being introduced?
The Bill adds certain news offences. For example, forcefully taking a firearm from police or armed forces has been made a crime under the Bill. The punishment for doing so is imprisonment between 10 years and life imprisonment, along with a fine. Additionally, the Bill punishes the negligent use of firearms, such as celebratory gunfire during weddings or religious ceremonies which endanger human life or personal safety of others. The proposed punishment in this case is imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.
The Bill also adds a definition of ‘illicit trafficking’. It is defined to include the trade, acquisition, sale of firearms or ammunitions into or out of India where the firearms are either not marked as per the Act or violate the provisions of the Act. The Bill makes illicit trafficking punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine.
Does the Bill address issues of organised crime?
The Bill also introduces a definition of ‘organised crime’. ‘Organised crime’ has been defined as continued unlawful activity by a person, either as a member of a syndicate or on its behalf, by using unlawful means, such as violence or coercion, to gain economic or other benefits. An organised crime syndicate refers to two or more persons committing organised crime.
The Bill introduces harsher punishments for members of an organised crime syndicate. For example, for the possession of an unlicensed firearm, the minimum term for an individual would be seven years, extendable to life imprisonment and liable to a fine. However, the possession of unlicensed firearms by a member of a syndicate will be punishable with imprisonment between 10 years and life, along with a fine. This increased punishment also applies to non-members contravening provisions of the Act on behalf of a syndicate.
[1] Crime in India 2017, National Crime Records Bureau, October 21, 2019, http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2017/pdfs/CII2017-Full.pdf.
[2] Crime in India 2016, National Crime Records Bureau, October 10, 2017, http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf.
