JUNE 14, 2023

By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]

Abstract
The mental healthcare delivery system in India was perhaps never a priority. Yet, of late, the rising suicide cases and the insensitivity of the system towards remedying the apathy seem to be on the mend. The Mental Healthcare Act (MHA) 2017 plays a pivotal role in enabling a fragmented but well-meaning effort.

In what could mark the fulcrum of change is a recently concluded examination of the ‘Mental health care and its management in contemporary times’ by the Parliament of India in April 2023 that brings a ray of hope to over 10 percent of India’s population suffering from myriad mental health issues.

Headed by Bhubaneshwar Kalita, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, Rajya Sabha, has found value in taking up concerns related to mental health, treatment gaps, and mental health care facilities available in the nation.

Introduction
Severe mental health conditions may debar people from employment, and even when gainfully working, the employees may face inequality at work. The key factors leading to suicide attempts include unemployment, job and financial insecurity, and recent job losses.

As per the World Health Organisation (WHO), yearly job losses due to depression and anxiety could be 12 billion working days amounting to $1 trillion in lost productivity. India’s share in this could easily be enormous considering we have a huge population suffering from mental health conditions, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus drew attention to the far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the huge toll it has taken on people’s mental health in the World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All – 2022.

He felt that our attitudes, actions, and approaches needed to change to achieve the global objectives set out in the WHO’s Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). As per WHO’s estimate, at any given point, 10 percent of the global population suffers from mental illness, and one in four persons is affected at least once in their lifetime. With the world population crossing the 8 billion mark in Nov. 2022, it is estimated that around 800 million people will be suffering from mental health issues.

Mental Healthcare in India
In Jan. 2023, a highly indicting report by India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to assess the status of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 in public mental healthcare institutions shook the nation to the core.

The Commission pointed out that “all 46 government mental healthcare institutions across the country are in deplorable conditions and depict a very pathetic handling by the different stakeholders”. Deplorable conditions of the mental health institutes recorded by NHRC across India, notwithstanding the severe shortage of doctors and staff, infringe on the human rights of mentally ill patients. Cured patients were often found kept illegally in inhuman conditions within the healthcare premises.

As per the 2016 National Mental Health Survey (NMHS), a landmark survey undertaken by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), the prevalence of mental disorders in adults over 18 in the nation was about 10.6 percent, translating to a whopping 150 million people.

The 12-state survey ( in Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh Manipur, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal) showed that the gender prevalence of lifetime psychotic disorders was higher for males at 1.5 percent as compared to females at 1.3 percent.

There is also a male predominance in alcohol use disorders (9.1 percent for males against 0.5 percent for females) and for bipolar affective disorder (BPAD), 0.6 percent for males as against 0.4 percent for females. However, the situation reverses for depressive, neurotic, and stress-related disorders where females mark a predominance (NMHS, 2016).

The survey points out that only one out of every ten persons suffering from mental health issues gets evidence-based treatment. A huge treatment gap of 50-60 percent for schizophrenia, 88 percent for depression, and 97.2 percent for alcohol use disorders were reported. Studies on epilepsy from India have reported a state-wise treatment gap, ranging from 22 to 95 percent.

Considering the scale of persons needing mental health care services in India, the professionals available are abysmally low. Currently, as per the WHO’s estimate, it stands at about 9,000, with 700 psychiatry graduates added each year.

Therefore, mental health care remains largely unsupported, with only 0.75 psychiatrists per 100,000, where the desirable score is at least 3 per 100,000 (6 per 100,000 for high-income nations). Surprisingly, the central government does not maintain data regarding the number of mental health professionals in the country ( Lok Sabha Parliamentary Question no. 4962; Answered on 01.04.2022.)

Poor Implementation of the MHA 2017
The MHA 2017, a comprehensive landmark legislation by the Indian government, provides for ‘mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfill the rights of such persons…’ with a ten-year timeline, 2027, set out for implementation.

However, six years have elapsed since the Act has been in force, yet the inadequacy of mental healthcare service providers and a dismal budget allocation has not been addressed. Despite the Act mandating the establishment of a state mental health authority, several states are yet to set it up. Further, mental health review boards are missing at the district level, as provisioned by the Act.

Among several provisions of the MHA 2017, gross violations of two key Sections, 19 and 100, have been noted in the NHRC report. The first is the illegal retention of cured patients in mental hospitals, defying the aforementioned Section, which provides for all such patients to be sent back to their homes/halfway homes.

The second involves the state police force, that in many instances, has been found to refuse assistance to patients with mental illness in the admission for treatment. On another front, courts in dealing with the MHA 2017 Sections 101,102 and in Jail cases to 103, too, have been found wanting, refusing to pass orders enabling assistance to mental health patients, especially pertinent to homeless mentally ill individuals.

Many states are still following the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985, while regulating the de-addiction centres instead of following the provisions of the MHA 2017.

Poor Budgeting for Mental Health
It is critical to scale-up investment in mental health to help steer post-covid mental health exigencies. Mental health care funding in India is about 1 percent of the total national health budget, a mere Rs. 0.84 billion annually. An allocation of Rs. 0.013 billion was put forward for National Tele Mental Health Programme in 2022, while in 2023, an endowment of Rs. 0.01 billion was granted by Rohini Nilekani to the NIMHANS and the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) to set up the ‘Centre for Brain and Mind.‘

Although the allocations are small, in the face of the acute shortage of mental health care, more such endowments can help build networks of awareness and knowledge as what gets known gets done.

Way Forward
A concerted effort to reduce India’s huge treatment gap is imperative to improve mental health care. The unavailability of psychiatrists or mental health professionals in primary care services, and the low presence of psychiatrists at specialized centres and distant locations keep patients away. Frontline medical staff is key to remedying the situation through well laid out guidelines with a mandate of ‘making every contact count.’

It is essential to bring positive changes; incorporate psychological aspects of care within all care pathways; identify risk factors and symptoms of mental health problems; and signpost and refer appropriately. Psychological first aid (PFA) is a globally recommended training for supporting people during crises and emergencies.

Leaders in multi-specialty healthcare services should be encouraged to gain exposure and model Indian organisations according to the international methodology and strategies, especially in Australia and the United Kingdom, which currently leads global mental health research.

For instance, Australia has 30 leading mental health organizations, such as Way Ahead, Drug ARM, Sane Australia, Grow, Beyond Blue, Mind Australia, and Headspace, which offer advisory services on the call with no charges. In the UK, groups such as the Mind, No Panic, Papyrus (Young Suicide Prevention Society), Samaritans, Sane, and Youngminds offer 24/7 support free of cost.

Apart from an effort to increase budgetary allocations, telemedicine, online help advisories, mobile apps, and sensitization of health workers towards mental health patients are needed to be augmented in India.

Notwithstanding health being a state subject, the central government has helped open separate psychiatry divisions in all 23 newly established AIIMS across India, fully funded by PMSSY. The central government must pump enough funds into organisations like the National Tele Mental Health Programme in order to start online mental health helpline services without losing any further time.

As India is home to a staggering 20 percent of total world mental health cases, it is important for the central government to maintain data on the number of mental health professionals to help effective policy formulations and better planning.

It is, therefore, with immense expectations that the report and recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare are awaited. By bringing on board all the state authorities, including chief secretaries, and prevailing upon them to expedite the implementation of the MHA 2017 in a time-bound manner, the committee can perhaps ensure the fulfillment of the provisions of the Act.

Virtual sessions, physical distancing or staggered timings? The jury is still out.

1. 22 July 2020 (

https://scroll.in/article/968272/how-can-indias-parliament-safely-conduct-its-monsoon-session-amid-the-covid-19-pandemic

)

By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]

Enabling transparency in governance and allowing members to voice their concerns about their constituencies, most parliaments around the world are successfully conducting hybrid sessions– that is, combining virtual and physical. India’s public representatives too need to be able to put their legitimate questions to the government about public health and its management during the pandemic, among other issues, and adequately perform their parliamentary duties of being accountable to the public.

However, the modalities about holding a virtual or hybrid session are still ambiguous. The media is abuzz with speculation various methods that are likely to be adopted in the proposed monsoon session, which should have been convened by now, had the circumstances been different.

The United Kingdom parliament, touted as the mother of all parliaments, has shown the way. MPs can ask questions and hold the government accountable without endangering their health through a hybrid mode. The UK parliament has limited the number of MPs entering the Chambers to 50. The remaining members can be seated elsewhere, even in their own constituency if necessary, and are connected virtually over Zoom.

The UK parliament has exempted members from attending parliament in person in three instances – if the member is Covid-19 positive, if any of their close associates/family reports coronavirus positive, or if the member is unable to travel due to lockdown-related disruptions.

The Canadian parliament is running its business mostly virtually. Every Tuesday and Thursday of June, 338 Canadian MPs logged into Zoom from their homes or offices to question ministers, replacing the daily in-person question period. Speaker Anthony Rota while calling the virtual running of parliament “historic” cautioned MPs not to post photos of the sessions on the Internet in accordance with the parliamentary rules. Although few Canadian law-makers have raised concerns over Zoom’s data security, the modality remains the same as of now. The Canadian prime minister claims that the nation has developed a perfect hybrid system where 30 MPs also meet each Wednesday in person in the parliament.

US experience

The American parliament has put out guidelines for their MPs about how to attend sessions in person and envisioned provisions for virtual participation, especially in the context of conducting committee meetings and hearings. Although no in-person member strength has been outlined, guidelines have been issued to senators.

The attending physician to the Congress in the US, Dr Brian Monahan, circulated a seven-page letter suggesting senators and visitors alike maintain six-feet distance, limit staff and visitors in offices, and encourage masks. Key suggestions included staff and lawmakers avoid gatherings when possible, stagger schedules and try to bring their meals from home to avoid crowding at dining facilities. It was also suggested that office layouts be modified to improve safety and sneeze guards be installed where possible.

Staff working in the Capitol building were also advised to attend health monitoring programmes and temperatures are to be monitored every morning by a designated office. The guidelines strongly advised offices to have regular cleaning schedules during work pauses and check if ventilation systems need improvement. The guidelines, however, did not advise testing of the senators but enabled the provision of testing any senator or staffer if needed.

Newly-elected Rajya Sabha member and BJP leader Jyotiraditya Scindia greets Congress leaders Ghulam Nabi Azad and Digvijaya Singh at Parliament House in New Delhi on July 22. Credit: PTI

Solutions for India

It is imperative for the Indian Parliament to meet before September 23. As per the constitutional provisions, there cannot be a gap of more than six months between two sessions. The last being the budget session, prematurely declared sine die, 11 days ahead of schedule on March 23, due to the countrywide lockdown.

Official consultations are ongoing towards formalising the modalities of holding the monsoon session. However, with no consensus in sight, it seems unlikely that the session will be held before the last week of August or the first week of September. To declare the session dates, the government needs to be sure about the logistical paraphernalia. Concerns such as the venue of the meetings in the Parliament that can adequately accommodate all the MPs and at the same time ensure physical distancing is a stiff call. Enabling MPs to participate in debates, discussions, question hour and passing of bills is therefore, doubly arduous.

Indications are that arrangements will be made for all MPs to be present in both the houses when the session is summoned. There are 11 ordinances that need to be replaced by an Act in the monsoon session. The physical presence of members is therefore essential for voting procedures. This seems to be the primary limitation in holding a virtual session.

Distancing norms

If one were to observe physical distancing norms, the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha chambers would not be able to accommodate more than a third of its members. The additional members would then have to be accommodated in public galleries, located on the first floor overlooking the chambers and in the lobbies which are the outer enclosure of the Chambers, as opined by a few experts. However, this added area may not suffice and also may not befit the stature of the members.

Another suggestion envisages the Central Hall situated between both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha chambers being brought into service. The Central Hall is where joint sittings are held in the Parliament. If all the members of Rajya Sabha were to attend, this Central Hall could probably be run as a Rajya Sabha chamber, but it would be inadequate for the Lok Sabha MPs. Although Vigyan Bhawan’s huge auditorium could be pushed into service for the Lok Sabha, the idea did not find favour due to its functionality concerns.

The parliamentary business, therefore, can only be viably conducted within the precincts of the two chambers – Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha – with the possibility of using the central hall as a partial/additional chamber. But the usage of the central hall cannot be shared as conventionally Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha are convened simultaneously.

Newly elected Rajya Sabha members took oath for the first time without the Parliament being in session. Credit: PTI

Odd-even formula?

The best option could then be to hold odd-even sessions for Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, or even perhaps morning and evening sessions. In both these situations, all three facilities can be available to both the Houses in an alternating manner. The three premises can be well connected with the video links and sound systems so that one can interject in a particular discussion or participate in voting either by voice or by division.

However, conducting sessions on alternate days as some experts opine seems to be a better option as compared to morning-evening alternations as businesses can be time insensitive. Detailed guidelines on medical precautions and physical distancing can be issued by the Central Government Health Services which takes care of health services in the parliament. They should also have an in-built provision of testing MPs and staff of the Parliament if needed.

Although several suggestions are under consideration, none of them point towards the virtual convening of the sessions. With the pandemic situation in India being fluid, the number of Covid-19 cases rising further is highly likely. This may result in re-lockdown in many areas as we have seen recently in Patna, Bengaluru and several other cities. If such a situation arises during the session, it may deter MPs from travelling to Delhi.

To counter this, a hybrid provision has to be put in place, as democracies world over have done. The online facility can be fairly simple as members can be connected through a platform installed in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha chambers. Viewed on a large screen next to the Chairs of the presiding officers, such MPs can participate with rigour and can be covered by the live telecast cameras too. The MPs located in their constituencies can be directed to uphold the seriousness of the proceedings by placing a carefully chosen backdrop and installing a secured ethernet connection to avoid disruptions.

With regular sessions not likely to resume until early next year, the Indian parliament must be willing to experiment with the hybrid medium. It needs to be synced with present-day realities. However, despite the various options being explored the modalities of conducting business in the Indian parliament remain largely person-centric.

(Narmadeshwar Prasad is the director of the Parliamentary and Administrative Research Institute and a former officer of the Rajya Sabha.)

1. July 17, 2020 (

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/embracing-virtual-reality-parliament-can-invoke-rule-266-389-to-help-parliamentary-committees-function-virtually/2026649/)By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]

The parliamentary system demands transparency and accountability in governance. Holding regular sessions, therefore, is intrinsic to its character. Parliaments across the world, amidst the Covid-19 crisis, have been conducting their sessions using a hybrid system where the majority of the members participate through a virtual medium with only a few attending in person. In the current scenario, India finds itself heading towards a virtual or hybrid monsoon session.

The question, however, is not only of the parliament sessions but also the parliamentary committee meetings. The Parliament Secretariat believes that these committee meetings cannot be conducted in virtual or hybrid spaces. However, why the ‘residuary powers’ of the presiding officers of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are not being invoked to create an enabling environment is not understable.

Published reports and articles regarding parliamentary committee meetings often cite that these are held in a closed room, ensuring confidentiality. In an open or breachable online forum, such meetings may not be in line with the rule position. Thus, demands of holding such meetings virtually, by members like Jairam Ramesh, chairman of the parliamentary science and tech committee, are repeatedly thwarted. As per the procedure, any change in the rule has to be first approved by the Committee on Rules, and thereafter by the House. But, as with the chicken and egg analogy, neither will the House sit in full capacity, nor will the rule position ever change.

There is a way out. The rule can be changed by invoking the residuary powers. Rule 266 states “All matters not specifically provided for in these rules and all questions relating to the detailed working of these rules shall be regulated in such manner as the Chairman from time to time direct”. And, Rule 389 enumerate similar powers for the Lok Sabha speaker.

The Covid-19 pandemic induced lockdown has drawn all the Committee deliberations to a complete standstill for the last three months. A feeble start\ with a meeting of the committee on science and technology on July 10, showed that few members (six members attending out of 31) would be willing to attend in person, further indicating that virtual pathways of interactions stand resolute.

India does not expect business as usual from the Parliament in the light of limitations imposed by the pandemic. It has to learn to adjust to a virtual or hybrid space and progressive suggestions towards conducting business in the committees is indeed pertinent at this juncture. The Parliament is endowed with over a dozen technically well-equipped committee rooms. These can be further augmented with high powered internet, digital screens and raised sections. Committee meetings may be organised in a webinar format with chairpersons of committees and relevant staff being present at the location. All members, officials, ministry representatives and other stakeholders/witnesses can uplink from laptops or smartphones wherever they may be.

The committee system is the most vibrant part of our democracy, throbbing with constructive ideas and a non-partisan view on critical issues. Members from different ideologies work together, asking relevant questions and contributing valuable suggestions. Committee reports are live testimonies of members working as a team for the betterment of the nation.

Over parliamentary history, not even 1% of the parliamentary reports have dissenting notes, marking the near unanimity in the committee functioning. It may come as a surprise, but more than 80% of the recommendations made by various committees are accepted by the government of the day, which speaks a volume of the relevance of these committees in India’s parliamentary system. There needs to be an urgency to commence the full spectrum of the virtual or hybrid committee meetings. India is the largest and most vibrant democracy in the world, it has a larger responsibility towards constitutional obligations, and it must stand upright and embrace reality.

The author is Former officer, Rajya Sabha secretariat and director, PARI

1. July 3, 2020 (

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/disastrous-management-ndmas-institutional-redundancy-and-the-mismanagement-of-covid-19-pandemic/2011789/lite/

)

By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]



It is common knowledge that India’s National Disaster Manager Authority (NDMA) is the nodal agency to initiate processes to alleviate strife and suffering arising out of disasters—biological, chemical, physical or hydrological. It was created under the Disaster Management (DM) Act 2005, which vested in it overriding powers to make rules and regulations for preventing, containing, evacuating, providing relief and various other related activities in the interest of the suffering public. Therefore, befittingly the DM Act 2005 was invoked on March 25—the first lockdown.

The NDMA being a nodal body holds unprecedented (overriding) powers and responsibilities that are paramount to the successful control and management of disasters. It was expected of the NDMA to come out with a national plan of mitigation as per mandate of the 2005 DM Act. As Covid-19 is a fast-moving and highly contagious virus, control measures should have been taken up proactively by the NDMA, which was sadly missed. As Covid-19 made its presence in the urban-scape, swathes of easily identifiable, high density, low hygiene areas should have been evacuated.

Evacuation protocols practised by the NDMA during hydrological disasters should have helped them make policy decisions and implement guidelines for city-specific prevention and mitigation requirements. Even helping thousands of hapless poor migrants reach their destination safely was well within NDMA’s purview and State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) duties.

NDMA, however, has been headless for a while now—for almost three long years. Also pertinent is the inadequate representation of members hailing from varied specialisations. As per the provisions of the DM Act 2005, the vice-chairperson, along with eight members, will head the NDMA and report to the prime minister, who is the ex-officio chairman. Sadly, there is no vice-chairperson, and only five members currently serve the NDMA. The Act also provides for the constitution of a National Executive Committee (NEC) headed by the secretary, ministry of home affairs—the administrative ministry of NDMA—to assist the Authority. . NEC is no longer assisting but is now in control, watering down the role of a national authority on disaster management.

As per the original scheme of things, the vice-chairman was to hold the rank of a cabinet minister, keeping in mind that he had to interact and coordinate with all the chief ministers. The members held the rank of a minister of state. Presently, the NDMA’s amended rules, vide notification number G.S.R..544(E) of July 30, 2014, allows for the vice-chairman to hold the rank of a cabinet secretary and that of the members—of a secretary to the government of India. This is a pull-down and marks a substantive change in the entire administrative character. In the absence of a vice-chairman, this bestows complete control to the home secretary.

A recent Order dated June 29, 2020, on the Guidelines for the Un-lockdown 2-significantly issued by the MHA with a copy endorsed to the members/member secretary to the NDMA—explains why vice-chairperson post is not being filled. This is also the reason states have been behaving as independent entities, refusing to receive migrant labour and closing their borders at will.

Of late, what we understand of NDMA is analogous with the very visible National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), with a rich corpus of NDRF funds which can be accessed by the NEC. Rs 11,000 crore has been provided from the NDRF fund to quarantine migrant labour returning to the states and assist them with food and medicine. But, it seems perplexing as to why the highly trained NDRF force, trained even for biological disasters, were not used to evacuate people from high density-low hygiene urban areas from the cities of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi etc, conduct tests and manage containment regions in the cities.

Now, two issues emerge. First, why was the official rank of the posts in NDMA diluted, while the PM continues to be the ex-officio chairperson? Without a cabinet minister rank in the authority, the PM being at the helm is unbefitting. Second, if a certain redundancy of the original structure was detected, why did the government not reframe the NDMA? Without any authority as per the DM Act 2005, NDMA is meaningless and an additional burden on the exchequer.

There is no information in the public domain about the compulsions under which the administrative structure of NDMA was downgraded. However, technically, the information to amend the service conditions of the members and vice-chairman was placed in Parliament on August 14, 2014. As per the parliamentary procedure a notification about change in service rules has to be submitted to both the Houses of Parliament, being available for scrutiny by the MPs for 30 days. But, as has been observed, MPs do not accord importance to notifications, and if objections are not raised, a notification is deemed to be passed after the stipulated period.

Perhaps the gaps in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic can be accorded to the invisibility of the NDMA, a body that was to have a singular role in a multitude of disasters, including biological ones. The lack of coordination between the centre and the states can perhaps be correlated with the reduced role of NDMA.

This structural fissure can, however, be amended if the PM should choose to empower the NDMA and appoint a suitable vice-chairman, reinstating the befitting rank in order to streamline the nation’s fight against the pandemic. Health scientists from the medical and community health sector can be placed as members to bolster a holistic approach. There are many such unknowns in the future, looming large is a cyber threat that is gaining more and more momentum as world dependency on AI, and IT-driven solutions grow.

A strong institution is no doubt, the requirement of the day.

The author is Director, Parliamentary and Administrative Research  Institute (PARI), New Delhi.

June 2018

By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]

Another idea will hold good if the Parliament adopts the principle of ‘the Disruptors Pay’ and levy heavy penalties on the disrupting members and deduct from their salary and allowances.

A near complete washout of the second part of the Budget Session 2018 has raised some alarming issues. Right to be heard in the Parliament is democratic but taking the Parliament to ransom is outright undemocratic.

Continue reading Washout of Parliament Session, a Breach of Privilege of the Houses, MPs By Dr. N.Prasad →

Jan 2017

By Dr. Narmadeshwar Prasad

[Director, Parliamentary & Administrative Research Institute (PARI)]

After Mr. Narendra Modi took over as the Prime Minister of India, expectations on several fronts, including parliamentary reforms rose. The status quoist attitude of the previous governments influenced people’s thinking and turned Indian bureaucracy lethargic.The change of power happened in 2014 on the promise of change. It took around two years to bring the goods and services tax preliminary legislation on track, which will be a landmark reform in our indirect taxation system. The Planning Commission gave way to Niti Aayog thus reducing one major wall between the people of states and the Centre. On the Parliamentary front, the promise to approve the national budgetary grants before March 31, 2016 will go down in the annals of history as major reform with far-reaching implications. Passing general budgets before March 31 would mean no ‘vote on account’ – no delay in implementation of developmental projects and thus no loss in revenue collection.

Vote on Account
Vote on account had become an integral part of our budgetary exercise. The concept entails a special provision given to the Indian Government to obtain the vote of parliament to withdraw money when the budget for the new financial year is not released or elections are underway, and the caretaker government is in place.
In simple terms, Article 266 of the Constitution makes it mandatory for the Indian Government to seek approval from the parliament before raising any funds from the consolidated funds of India. The vote on account represents the expenditure side of the government’s budget; i.e. government gives the estimate of the funds required during the first two months of the financial year. It stays valid for two months which can be extended if the year is an election year and it is anticipated that the main demand and the appropriation bill will take longer to be passed by the House.
It is very clear from the above definition that vote on account should be applicable only in an election year i.e. once in five years or when there is a caretaker government in place. However, the practice of vote on account became a regular feature in the normal years too. Additionally, the period of vote on account sometimes extended even beyond two months.

Projects forced to wait
During the period of vote on account, the ministries/departments can only use the funds meant for the expenditure side i.e. salary disbursements, loan interests and other non-plan expenses, meaning thereby no new projects would be taken up till the budget is finally passed by the Parliament and individual notices/communications are received by the ministries/departments which takes around two to three months. Thus the nation loses crucial time every year on development works as no project is initiated or built upon during this period. The bureaucracy also postpones every new initiative and waits for the final passage of the budget.
One of the essential features of a vote on account is that it cannot alter the tax proposals since the Financial Bill needs to be passed by the Parliament. Which means the nation loses financially also as the altered taxes though proposed in the budget documents, but can not be implemented for two to three months which amounts to a loss of around 1/3rd of the revenue in a year. The last minute rush of spending the budgets allocated to the Centre and state level governments have resulted in many anomalies at the cost of the beneficiaries. Many a time budgets get reduced due non-spending of the full amount in a financial year.

The Proposed reform and its impact
As proposed by the new Government, the budget for 2017-18 will be presented in the Parliament on February 1, 2017. It will be given 30-40 days scrutiny by the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees which examine the individual demands for grants thread-bare and give their reports to the Parliament. Earlier this process used to spill over to April end and sometimes early May and hence the vote on account was needed. Once the entire budget exercise gets over by March 31, there will be no need for a vote on account and the government can straightway start implementing projects from April 1.
This will also not leave any excuse to the bureaucracy for delaying the project. On an average the efficiency of the government was 75 per cent and an equal proportion of revenue was collected. Now the time available for implementation of all the projects will be the full 12 months and the revenue collection will also be 100 per cent.

Conclusion
The crucial time lost due to vote on account earlier will now be available with the government for implementation of many social projects in the states and it will usher in a new era. This will also put a stop to the last minute rush of spending the budgets allocated to the Centre and state level governments. Many such reforms are needed to make the parliamentary democracy a success and turn the common people of the country into beneficiaries.