![](/images/main_logo.png)
The budget session of Parliament every year starts with the President’s Address to both Houses. In this speech, the President highlights the government’s achievements and legislative activities in the last year, and announces its agenda for the upcoming year. The address is followed by a motion of thanks that is moved in each House by ruling party MPs. This is followed by a discussion on the address and concludes with the Prime Minister replying to the points raised during the discussion.
Today, the Budget Session 2019 commenced with the President, Mr. Ram Nath Kovind addressing a joint sitting of Parliament. In his speech, he highlighted some of the objectives that the government has realised in the past year. The President also highlighted the progress made by the government under various development schemes such as the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana, and the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana.
Given that today’s address comes at the end of this government’s term, we examine the status of some key policy initiatives announced by the current government, that have been highlighted in speeches made in the past five years.
Policy priority stated in President’s Addresses 2014-2018 |
Current Status |
Economy and Finance |
|
Despite a global economic downturn, the Indian economy has remained on a high growth trajectory.
|
|
Measures to deal with corruption, black money and counterfeit currency will be introduced
|
|
To promote the concept of cooperative federalism through One Nation-One Tax and One Nation-One Market, the government introduced the Goods and Services Tax |
|
Agriculture |
|
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for a majority of people. For holistic development of the agricultural sector, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana was launched in 2016 |
|
Employment and Entrepreneurship |
|
The government has continuously worked for reforms of labour laws. Minimum wages have increased by more than 40%
|
|
Infrastructure |
|
Cities are the engines of economic growth. The Smart City programme was initiated to build modern amenities and infrastructure.
|
|
All rural habitations will be connected with all-weather roads. So far, 73,000 kilometres of roads have been laid in rural areas.
|
|
Housing is a fundamental right. All households shall have a dwelling unit under the Mission Housing for All by 2022.
|
|
Health and Sanitation |
|
Poor sanitation weakens the economic wherewithal of a poor household. The Swachh Bharat Abhiyan aims to ensure health and sanitation. |
|
The government is committed to providing affordable and accessible healthcare to all its citizens, particularly the vulnerable groups. |
|
Source: President’s Addresses 2014-2018; PRS.
For important highlights from the President’s address in 2019, please see here. For a deeper analysis of the status of implementation of the announcements made in the President’s addresses from 2014 to 2018, please see here.
[i] “Press Note on First Advance Estimates of National Income: 2018-19”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau, http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/Presss%20note%20for%20first%20advance%20estimates%202018-19.pdf.
[ii] “Second Advance Estimates of National Income, 2017-18”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176847
[iii] “Second Advance Estimates of National Income, 2016-17”, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Press Information Bureau, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=158734
[iv] Overview-Monetary Policy, Reserve Bank of India, https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Overview.aspx?fn=2752.
[v] “Foreign Exchange Reserves,” Reserve Bank of India, January 25, 2019, https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/WSSView.aspx?Id=22729.
[vi] RBI Database, https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=home.
[vii] Table No. 160, Handbook of Statistics on the Indian Economy, Reserve Bank of India, https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualPublications.aspx?head =Handbook%20of%20Statistics%20on%20Indian%20Economy
[viii] Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1319, Ministry of Finance, December 22, 2017, http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=59329&lsno=16.
[ix] “The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018”, PRS Legislative Research, March 16, 2018, http://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Fugitive%20Economic%20Offenders%20Bill%20-%20Bill%20Summary.pdf.
[x] “The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill”, PRS Legislative Research, February 12, 2014, http://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Bill_Summary-_Prevention_of_Corruption_1.pdf.
[xi] “GST roll-out – Complete transformation of the Indirect Taxation Landscape; Some minute details of how it happened, Ministry of Finance”, Press Information Bureau, June 30, 2017, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=167023.
[xii] Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 17, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, December 11, 2018, http://164.100.47.190/loksabhaquestions/annex/16/AS17.pdf.
[xiii] “Year End Review, Ministry of Labour and Employment”, December 18, 2017, http://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1512998.
[xiv] Rate of Minimum Wages, Ministry of Labour and Employment, March 1 2017, https://labour.gov.in/sites/default/files/MX-M452N_20170518_132440.pdf.
[xv] Gazette Number 173, Ministry of Labour and Employment, January 19, 2017, Gazette of India, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2017/173724.pdf.
[xvi] “Union Cabinet approves Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation and Smart Cities Mission to drive economic growth and foster inclusive urban development”, Press Information Bureau, April 29, 2015, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=119925.
[xvii] “Shillong (Meghalaya) gets selected as the 100th Smart City”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Press Information Bureau, June 20, 2018, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=180063
[xviii] “Year Ender- Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs-2018”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Press Information Bureau, December 31, 2018, http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1557895.
[xix] PMGSY Guidelines, Ministry of Rural Development, last accessed on October 23, 2018. http://pmgsy.nic.in/.
[xx] “Implementation of PMGSY”, Ministry of Rural Development, Press Information Bureau, December 27, 2018, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=186837.
[xxi] Online Management, Monitoring and Accounting System (OMMAS), Pradhan Mantri, Gram Sadak Yojana, last accessed on October 23, 2018, http://omms.nic.in/Home/CitizenPage/#.
[xxii] High Level Physical Progress Report, PMAYG, Ministry of Rural Development, last accessed on January 25, 2019, https://rhreporting.nic.in/netiay/PhysicalProgressReport/physicalprogressreport.aspx
[xxiii] “Year Ender-6-PMAY-Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 2018”, Press Information Bureau, December 27, 2018, http://pib.nic.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1557462.
[xxiv] “Swachh Bharat Mission needs to become a Jan Andolan with participation from every stakeholder: Hardeep Puri, 1,789 Cities have been declared ODF conference on PPP model for waste to energy projects”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Press Information Bureau, November 30, 2017, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=173995.
[xxv] “PM launches Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan”, Prime Minister’s Office, Press Information Bureau, October 2, 2014, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110247.
[xxvi] “Individual Household Latrine Application”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, last accessed on January 30, 2019, http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/ihhl/RPTApplicationSummary.aspx.
[xxvii] “Individual Household Latrine Application”, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, last accessed on January 30, 2019, http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/ihhl/RPTApplicationSummary.aspx.
[xxviii] Swachh Bharat Mission (Gramin), Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, last accessed on January 30, 2019, https://sbm.gov.in/sbmdashboard/Default.aspx.
[xxix] “Ayushman Bharat for a new India -2022, announced”, Ministry of Finance, Press Information Bureau, February 1, 2018,s http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176049
[xxx] About NHA, Ayushmaan Bharat, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, https://www.pmjay.gov.in/about-nha.
[xxxi] “Ayushman Bharat –Pradhan Mantri Jan AarogyaYojana (AB-PMJAY) to be launched by Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi in Ranchi, Jharkahnd on September 23, 2018”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Press Information Bureau, September 22, 2018, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=183624.
[xxxii] National Health Accounts, estimates for 2014-15 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, https://mohfw.gov.in/newshighlights/national-health-accounts-estimates-india-2014-15.
In a landmark judgment on April 12, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the provision in the Right to Education Act, 2009 that makes it mandatory for all schools (government and private) except private, unaided minority schools to reserve 25% of their seats for children belonging to “weaker section and disadvantaged group”. The verdict was given by a three-judge bench namely Justice S.H. Kapadia (CJI), Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan. However, the judgment was not unanimous. Justice Radhakrishnan gave a dissenting view to the majority judgment. According to news reports (here and here), some school associations are planning to file review petitions against the Supreme Court order (under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may review any judgment or order made by it. A review petition may be filed if there is (a) discovery of new evidence, (b) an error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) any other sufficient reason). In this post, we summarise the views of the judges. Background of the petition The 86th (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2002 added Article 21A to the Constitution which makes it mandatory for the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children from the age of six to 14 years (fundamental right). The Parliament enacted the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to give effect to this amendment. The Act provides that children between the ages of six and 14 years have the right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school. It also lays down the minimum norms that each school has to follow in order to get legal recognition. The Act required government schools to provide free and compulsory education to all admitted children. Similarly, aided schools have to provide free and compulsory education proportionate to the funding received, subject to a minimum of 25%. However, controversy erupted over Section 12(1)(c) and (2) of the Act, which required private, unaided schools to admit at least 25% of students from SCs, STs, low-income and other disadvantaged or weaker groups. The Act stated that these schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower. After the Act was notified on April 1, 2010, the Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of this provision on the ground that it impinged on their right to run educational institutions without government interference. Summary of the judgment Majority The Act is constitutionally valid and shall apply to (a) government controlled schools, (b) aided schools (including minority administered schools), and (c) unaided, non-minority schools. The reasons are given below: First, Article 21A makes it obligatory on the State to provide free and compulsory education to all children between 6 and 14 years of age. However, the manner in which the obligation shall be discharged is left to the State to determine by law. Therefore, the State has the freedom to decide whether it shall fulfill its obligation through its own schools, aided schools or unaided schools. The 2009 Act is “child centric” and not “institution centric”. The main question was whether the Act violates Article 19(1)(g) which gives every citizen the right to practice a profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business. However, the Constitution provides that Article 19(1)(g) may be circumscribed by Article 19(6), which allow reasonable restriction over this right in the interest of the general public. The Court stated that since “education” is recognized as a charitable activity [see TMA Pai Foundation vs State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481] reasonable restriction may apply. Second, the Act places a burden on the State as well as parents/guardians to ensure that every child has the right to education. Thus, the right to education “envisages a reciprocal agreement between the State and the parents and it places an affirmative burden on all stakeholders in our civil society.” The private, unaided schools supplement the primary obligation of the State to provide for free and compulsory education to the specified category of students. Third, TMA Pai and P.A. Inamdar judgments hold that the right to establish and administer educational institutions fall within Article 19(1)(g). It includes right to admit students and set up reasonable fee structure. However, these principles were applied in the context of professional/higher education where merit and excellence have to be given due weightage. This does not apply to a child seeking admission in Class I. Also, Section 12(1)(c) of the Act seeks to remove financial obstacle. Therefore, the 2009 Act should be read with Article 19(6) which provides for reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g). However, the government should clarify the position with regard to boarding schools and orphanages. The Court also ruled that the 2009 Act shall not apply to unaided, minority schools since they are protected by Article 30(1) (all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice). This right of the minorities is not circumscribed by reasonable restriction as is the case under Article 19(1)(g). Dissenting judgment Article 21A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The obligation is not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions. Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act can be operationalised only on the principles of voluntariness, autonomy and consensus for unaided schools and not on compulsion or threat of non-recognition. The reasons for such a judgment are given below: First, Article 21A says that the “State shall provide” not “provide for”. Therefore, the constitutional obligation is on the State and not on non-state actors to provide free and compulsory education to a specified category of children. Also, under Article 51A(k) of the Constitution, parents or guardians have a duty to provide opportunities for education to their children but not a constitutional obligation. Second, each citizen has the fundamental right to establish and run an educational institution “investing his own capital” under Article 19(1)(g). This right can be curtailed in the interest of the general public by imposing reasonable restrictions. Citizens do not have any constitutional obligation to start an educational institution. Therefore, according to judgments of TMA Pai and PA Inamdar, they do not have any constitutional obligation to share seats with the State or adhere to a fee structure determined by the State. Compelling them to do so would amount to nationalization of seats and would constitute serious infringement on the autonomy of the institutions. Rights guaranteed to the unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 30(1) can only be curtailed through a constitutional amendment (for example, insertion of Article 15(5) that allows reservation of seats in private educational institutions). Third, no distinction can be drawn between unaided minority and non-minority schools with regard to appropriation of quota by the State. Other issues related to the 2009 Act Apart from the issue of reservation, the RTE Act raises other issues such as lack of accountability of government schools and lack of focus on learning outcomes even though a number of studies have pointed to low levels of learning among school children. (For a detailed analysis, please see PRS Brief on the Bill).