This report, released by Association for Democratic Reforms has provided a detailed analysis of the cases of hate speeches against the sitting members of the Parliament (MPs) and the members of the legislative assemblies (MLAs). The report states that that the data accumulated and presented through this report is in good faith and the main intention is to ensure that the voters are informed. Notably, the source of the analysis are the affidavits filed by MPs/MLAs with their nomination papers.

In addition to this, the report also provided a state wise division of the hate speech cases filed. According to the data, cases of hate speech had been filled against seven Sitting MPs from Uttar Pradesh. This is followed by Tamil Nadu with cases against four MPs, three MPs each from Bihar, Karnataka and Telangana and two each from Assam, Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal.

For the state assemblies, of the 4005 current sitting MLAs in the legislative assemblies, cases of hate speeches have been filed against 74 of them. The report provides the party wise distribution of MLAs with declared hate speech cases. According to this data, 20 MLAs from the BJP have cases of hate speech against them, 13 are from the INC (Indian National Congress), 6 are from Aam Aadmi Party. Furthermore, 5 MLAs each from SP (Samajwadi Party) and YSRCP (Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party), 4 each from DMK (Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam) and RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal), 3 each from AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) and SHS (Shiv Sena, Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray), and 2 from AIUDF (All India United Democratic Front) have cases of hate speech against them.

As per the state-wise distribution, the highest number of hate speech cases, nine in total, have been against MLAs from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh each, followed by six each from Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Telangana. Furthermore, five MLAs each from Assam and Tamil Nadu, 4 each from Delhi, Gujarat and West Bengal, three each from Jharkhand and Uttarakhand, two each from Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tripura and one MLA each from Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have pending hate speech cases against them.

In conclusion, a total of 16 MPs and MLAs from Uttar Pradesh have cases of hate speech against them. The BJP party also has the highest number of sitting MPs and MLAs, 42 in total, with hate speech cases against them.

Details of the hate speech cases filed against MPs

The report also provides details of the cases filed against the MPs, which includes the total number of cases filed, the sections of the Indian Penal Code employed against them, the status of the cases and whether there has been any conviction or not. The data also includes the details of the FIR filed, the jurisdictional police station, framing of charges and the details of the appeal filed.

According to the data provided by the report, the highest number of pending cases related to hate speech are against Bapu Rao Soyam, Adilabad, Telangana from the BJP. According to the report, a total of 52 cases have been filed against him wherein 55 serious sections have been invoked along with 232 other IPC sections. The brief details of the IPC sections used are as follows:

Serious IPC charges:

• 13 charges related to Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land- mark fixed by public authority Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees (Section-435)
• 12 charges related to Punishment for dacoity (Section-395)
• 8 charges related to Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon (Section-398)
• 8 charges related to Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. (Section-436)
• 3 charges related to Punishment for criminal intimidation (Section-506)
• 2 charges related to Lurking house trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment (Section-457)
• 2 charges related to Theft in dwelling house, etc. (Section-380)
• 2 charges related to Attempt to murder (Section-307)
• 1 charge related to Forgery for purpose of cheating (Section-468)
• 1 charge related to Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means (Section-324)
• 1 charge related to House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint (Section-452)
• 1 charge related to Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Section-153A)
• 1 charge related to Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Section-420)

Other IPC charges:

• 45 charges related to Punishment of criminal conspiracy (Section-120B)
• 41 charges related to Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees (Section-427)
• 34 charges related to Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant (Section-188)
• 30 charges related to Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object (Section-149)
• 29 charges related to Punishment for Rioting (Section-147)
• 26 charges related to Rioting, armed with deadly weapon (Section-148)
• 8 charges related to Punishment for house-trespass (Section-448)
• 6 charges related to Punishment for criminal trespass (Section-447)
• 3 charges related to Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon (Section-144)
• 3 charges related to Punishment for Being member of an unlawful assembly (Section-143)
• 2 charges related to Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty (Section-353)
• 2 charges related to Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention (Section-34)
• 1 charge related to Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record (Section-471)
• 1 charge related to Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for (Section-290)
• 1 charge related to Punishment for cheating by personation ( Section-419)

Notably, there has been no conviction against him till date.

It is crucial to highlight here that a total of 183 cases related to hate speech are pending against the aforementioned 22 BJP MPs. A total of 44 cases were reported to have been filed against the 2 MPs belonging to the INC.

The report also provides the details of the cases related to hate speech filed against Union Home Minister and BJP MP Amit Shah. According to the data provided, a total of 4 cases remain pending against Shah, which include 4 serious IPC sections and 7 other IPC sections. The brief details of the charges filed and section of the IPC invoked against him are as follows:

Serious IPC sections:

• 1 charge related to Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. (Section-436)
• 1 charge related to Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Section-153A)
• 1 charge related to Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration (Section- 153B)
• 1 charge related to Punishment for criminal intimidation (Section-506)

Other IPC sections:

• 2 charges related to Punishment for Defamation (Section-500)
• 1 charge related to Criminal intimidation (Section-503)
• 1 charge related to Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace (Section-504)
• 1 charge related to Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees (Section-427)
• 1 charge related to Defamation (Section-499)
• 1 charge related to Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant (Section-188)

Notably, there has been no conviction against him till date.

Hate speech cases filed against MLAs

The report also provides details of the cases filed against the MPs, which includes the total number of cases filed, the sections of the Indian Penal Code employed against them, the status of the cases and whether there has been any conviction or not. It also includes the details of the FIR filed, the jurisdictional police station, framing of charges and the details of the appeal filed.

According to the report, the highest number of pending cases related to hate speech have been filed against Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao, representing Siddipet, Gajwel, Telangana of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS). As of the year 2018, a total of 64 cases related to hate speech had been filed against him out of which 37 serious IPC charges have been imposed with 283 other IPC sections. It is essential to highlight here that out of the 64 cases filed, cognizance was taken in 63 of them and charges have been filed in only one of them. There has been no conviction till date. The brief details of the charges filed and section of the IPC invoked against him are as follows:

Serious IPC charges:

• 13 charges related to Punishment for criminal intimidation (Section-506)
• 4 charges related to Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty (Section-332)
• 3 charges related to Attempt to murder (Section-307)
• 3 charges related to Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means (Section-324)
• 3 charges related to Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft (Section-382)
• 3 charges related to Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (IPC Section-153A)
• 2 charges related to Statements conducing to public mischief (Section-505)
• 2 charges related to Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land- mark fixed by public authority Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees (Section-435)
• 2 charges related to Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment (Section-511)
• 1 charge related to Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will, authority to adopt, or valuable security (Section-477)
• 1 charge related to Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration (Section- 153B)

Other IPC charges:

• 43 charges related to Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant (Section- 188)
• 42 charges related to Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object (Section-149)
• 39 charges related to Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment (Section-109)
• 28 charges related to Punishment for Being member of an unlawful assembly (Section- 143)
• 22 charges related to Punishment for Rioting (Section-147)
• 18 charges related to Punishment for wrongful restraint (Section-341)
• 14 charges related to Punishment of criminal conspiracy (Section-120B)
• 11 charges related to Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
• duty (Section-353)
• 10 charges related to Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten
• persons (Section-117)
• 9 charges related to Rioting, armed with deadly weapon (Section-148)
• 9 charges related to Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees (Section-427)
• 9 charges related to Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions (Section- 186)
• 6 charges related to Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot-if rioting be committed- if not committed (Section-153)
• 4 charges related to Punishment for house-trespass (Section-448)
• 4 charges related to Punishment for criminal trespass (Section-447)
• 3 charges related to Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon (Section-144)
• 3 charges related to Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse (Section-151)
• 3 charges related to Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for (Section-290)
• 2 charges related to Abettor present when offence is committed (Section-114)
• 2 charges related to Attempt to commit suicide (Section-309)
• 1 charge related to Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done (Section-111)
• 1 charge related to Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform (Section-202)

Not surprisingly, BJP MLA T. Raja Singh has the highest number of cases related to hate speech where charges have been framed. As per the report, a total of 43 cases have been filed against Singh wherein 51 serious IPC sections have been invoked and 92 other IPC sections have been used. Furthermore, out of the 43 cases, cognizance has been taken in 27 cases and charges have been framed in 16 cases. It is essential to note that there been no conviction in any of the cases till date. A brief of the serious charges invoked against Singh are as follows:

• 17 charges related to Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony (Section-153A)
• 9 charges related to Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (Section-295A)
• 7 charges related to Punishment for criminal intimidation (Section-506)
• 4 charges related to Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment (Section-454)
• 4 charges related to Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house,

etc. (Section-436)

• 3 charges related to Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class (Section-295)
• 3 charges related to Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty (Section-332)
• 1 charge related to Attempt to murder (Section-307)
• 1 charge related to Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national-integration (Section-

153B)

• 1 charge related to Statements conducing to public mischief (Section-505)
• 1 charge related to Theft in dwelling house, etc. (Section-380)

The complete report can be read here:

Related:

Hate speeches, stone pelting, brandishing of weapons – what VHP’s Shaurya Yatras have achieved till date

Terror accused BJP MP Pragya Thakur delivers hate speech in Bhopal, recalls her role in demolition of Babri Masjid

Bilkis Bano gang rape convict shares stage with BJP MP, MLA: Gujarat

Bakri Eid: FIR against 9, including BJP MLA, for harassing Muslim family, using disparaging words against Muslim community

Raja Singh, a BJP MLA with a history of communal speeches, delivers another anti-Muslim speech

CJP files complaint against suspended BJP MLA T. Raja Singh in SEC, Karnataka for delivering anti-Muslim hate speeches at BJP rallies

Crossing all limits, BJP MLA, T. Raja Singh calls for genocide & economic boycott of Muslims: Maharashtra

In line with the approaching Karnataka polls, BJP MLA KS Eshwarappa gives anti-Muslim speech

Descendants of Tipu will not win, says BJP MLA in Karnataka

No action taken by authorities as BJP MLA Raja Singh engages in communal hate speech again in Maharashtra

Hate Watch: Notice served to BJP MLA Raja Singh for hate speech at Ajmer Dargah: Hyderabad

The post Indian elected officials and hate speech: ADR Report appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These were among the details revealed in a new analysis, which reported that the average assets of 335 MPs re-contesting elections in 2019 increased by Rs 6.9 crore over 2014, a rise of 41%. The best returns on investments over this period, a financial expert told IndiaSpend, came from equities: about 16%.

The five MPs whose wealth rose over 10 times were Sumedhanand Saraswati (Bharatiya Janata Party, 80 times), Abu Hasim Khan Chaudhary (Indian National Congress, 22 times), Sankar Prasad Datta (Communist Party of India-Marxist, 20 times), Shrikant Shinde (Shiv Sena, 18 times) and Jyotiraditya Scindia (Indian National Congress, 10 times), according to data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch, both advocacies.

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms

Among the top 10 MPs with the highest increase in assets, four are from the Congress (of which three top the list), three from the ruling BJP and one each from the Nationalist Congress Party, the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS).

The average assets of BJP MPs–170 of 335 MPs who contested again in 2019–grew 31% over the five years, from Rs 13 crore in 2014 to Rs 17 crore in 2019. The SAD’s two MPs grew richer by an average of Rs 115 crore, the Nationalist Congress Party’s four MPs grew richer, on average, by Rs 102 crore and 38 Congress MPs, on average, by Rs 60 crore, according to ADR data.

The ADR analysed self-sworn affidavits of 335 out of 338 MPs, three of whom were not analysed “due to unclear/incomplete affidavits from 2014”, said the report, which found increase in the assets of these 335 to be Rs 23.9 crore in 2019, from Rs 16.8 crore in 2014.

The implication of these data is payoffs or corruption, but Subhendu Harichandan, director at Anand Rathi Wealth Management, a wealth consultancy, cautioned against “painting everybody with the same brush”.

“The inflow may or may not be legitimate,” said Harichandan. “The inflow through legitimate means would be income from salary or business. One has to analyse individual balance sheets to understand their (MPs) asset growth.”

These financial details emerged because the election commission (EC) on February 26, 2019–after a Supreme Court judgement that month–made it mandatory for Lok Sabha candidates to report income-tax returns of the previous five years, offshore assets and permanent account number (PAN) details of self, spouse, dependents and Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Under the HUF, a family is treated as an individual and taxed at the same rates as an individual. This provision is usually used by business families and families with ancestral properties. Jain and Sikh families are also governed under this Act.

To contest a Lok Sabha election requires, according to unofficial estimates, between Rs 10 crore and Rs 30 crore,  said Rahul Verma, fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, a think tank.

“The average politician in India is richer than the average person,” said Verma. Political parties tend to believe candidates with “dynastic or criminal pasts” win elections, and that belief is easily expressed.

“Most parties in India are centralised (around single families or single leaders), so there is no intra-party democracy,” said Verma.

The MP who grew Rs 366-crore richer

Konda Vishweshwar Reddy of the Congress–India’s main opposition party–from Chevella, Telangana, grew richer by Rs 366 crore since the 2014 general elections, the highest rise among 335 MPs who contested elections again in 2019.

Reddy’s assets increased 69% over the five years, from Rs 528 crore in 2014 to Rs 895 crore in 2019. His assets in 2014 included that of his spouse and three sons (Anindith, Vishwajit and Viraj) filed returns, while in 2019 included his spouse and his youngest son Viraj Madhav Reddy.
In 2014–when he represented the TRS, switching to the Congress in November 2018–Reddy reported movable assets, such as deposits, bonds and jewellery, valued at Rs 482 crore, rising 78% to Rs 858 crore in 2019.

Most of Reddy’s wealth (95% or Rs 820 crore in 2019) came from bonds, debentures and shares in companies. Reddy, his wife and son hold shares of Apollo Hospitals, valued at Rs 466 crore, accounting for 57% of his income from bonds, debentures and shares. Reddy’s wife, Sangita Reddy, is the joint managing director of Apollo Hospitals.

Reddy’s immovable assets–such as agricultural/non-agricultural land, commercial/residential buildings–decreased 18% over five years, from Rs 49 crore in 2014 to Rs 40 crore in 2019.

Konda Vishweshwar Reddy reported liabilities–including that of his wife–worth Rs 35 crore in 2019, up from Rs 7 crore in 2014.

“Most candidates come from a rich background, so they have investments in rent-seeking activities,” said Verma. “Many have assets like industries, factories and petrol pumps. You cannot do politics without economic resources.” And being in politics, as the table below indicates, tends to increase the value of those assets.

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms

After Reddy, the next two MPs who reported the greatest rise in assets were Jyotiraditya Scindia and D.K Suresh, both from the Congress.
Scindia contested from Guna, Madhya Pradesh, and his assets grew 1032% over the five years, rising from Rs 33 crore in 2014 to Rs 374 crore in 2019. Scindia’s wealth in 2014 was inclusive of his spouse and two dependents, while in 2019 it included his spouse, two dependents and the HUF.

Scindia is the descendant of a former Madhya Pradesh royal family, the grandson of the late Jivajirao Scindia, the last maharaja (king) of Gwalior and son of the late Madhavrao Scindia, a former Congress union minister.

Scinida reported movable assets valued at Rs 2 crore in 2014, which increased 2150% to Rs 45 crore in 2019. His immovable assets rose 933%, from Rs 30 crore in 2014 to Rs 328 crore in 2019.  

Immovable assets accounted for 88% (Rs 328 crore of Rs 374 crore) of Scindia’s wealth in 2019.  Agricultural land under HUF accounted for 55% of his immovable assets, followed by residential buildings (45%), including his own and HUF.

Scindia reported liabilities–including that of his wife–worth Rs 35 lakh in 2019, while in 2014 he reported liabilities (only self) worth Rs 14 lakh.
Shiromani Akali Dal MPs got rich

The SAD, a BJP ally, reported the highest average assets among MPs (Rs 115 crore) in 2019, followed by the NCP (Rs 102 crore), the Jannayak Janta Party (Rs 76 crore), the Congress (Rs 61 core and the BJD (Rs 55 crore).

The impact of the EC order to report finances is evident here as well, since SAD was not among the top 10 richest parties in 2014.  

Source: Association for Democratic Reforms

The SAD has two members re-contesting in 2019, Harsimrat Kaur Badal with assets valued at Rs 217 crore, and Prem Singh with assets valued at Rs 12 crore.

Badal was elected from Punjab’s Bathinda constituency in 2014 and was made union minister for food processing industries under the National Democratic Alliance government. She is the wife of Sukhbir Singh Badal, former deputy chief minister of Punjab and president of SAD.

Badal’s declared assets in 2019 were her own, her husband’s, HUF and one dependent. In 2014, her assets were her own and her husband’s.
Immovable assets accounted for 54% (Rs 117 crore) of Badal’s declared assets in 2019. Agricultural land comprised 42% (Rs 49 crore) of immovable assets, of which Rs 45 crore was declared under HUF. Badal declared movable assets valued at Rs 100 crore, of which bonds, debentures and shares in companies accounted for Rs 60 crore.

In terms of percentage increase of assets over five years, Sumedhanand Saraswati of the BJP from Rajasthan Sikar, as we said, reported highest asset growth (8141%), from Rs 34,311 in 2014 to Rs 28.27 lakh in 2019.

Saraswati’s 2019 affidavit reveals declaration of a motor vehicle worth Rs 16 lakh, a major reason for the growth in his assets. He reported liabilities–loans from banks/financial institutions–worth Rs 27 lakh in 2019, while no liabilities were reported in 2014.  

Saraswati was followed by Abu Hasem Khan Chowdhury (2244%) of the Congress, Sankar Prasad Datta (2016%) of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Shrikant Eknath Shinde (1866%) of the Shiv Sena and, as we said, Jyotiraditya Scindia (1032%).

The assets of Chowdhury, an MP from Malda Dakshin constituency in West Bengal, increased from Rs 1 crore in 2014 to Rs 27 crore in 2019. The increase was mainly due to declaration of his wife’s offshore bank accounts, valued at Rs 9 crore of Rs 10 crore listed as movable assets. The 2019 affidavit also revealed a plot of land in Switzerland–under (residential buildings) immovable assets–worth Rs 15 crore in his wife’s name. Both these declarations were not available in the 2014 affidavit.

Chowdhury reported liabilities worth Rs 7 lakh in 2019, compared to Rs 6 lakh in 2014. Shinde reported liabilities worth Rs 12 lakh in 2019, while Datta reported no liabilities.

There are, however, caveats to analysing the growth evident in these declarations.

Why asset growth is hard to analyse

Any analysis of the asset growth of MPs over five years must consider two types of income, said Harichandan of Anand Rathi Wealth Management: from house property (rental income), salary, profits or gains from business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources (such as interest income, dividends and lotteries); and the “market impact of asset classes” and the years MPs have held them.

Although it is hard to predict “inflows”, over the last five years, equities, invested monthly, have delivered the best returns–about 16% return on Rs 50,000 invested per month over this period, said Harichandan. This means, for example, a Rs 30 lakh investment would become Rs 46 lakh.
Real-estate returns depend on the type of property and how many years it was held before being sold, said Harichandan, who spoke of a “multiplier effect” but not more than 18-19%, if the land was purchased between 15 and 20 years ago.

Returns on residential property over five years to 2019 have ranged from 4-5% to 13-14% and commercial property from 7-8% to 15-16%, said Harichand, depressed in general and worsening after demonetisation in November 2016, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi invalidated 86% of India’s currency, by value.

Opaque campaign-finance laws hinder optimal use of asset information.

“We do not know how campaign finance is generated and spent,” said the CPR’s Verma, explaining that while the EC asks candidates to reveal asset information, it is not known if this is analysed.

“I do not think just creating public awareness is going to solve the problem,” said Verma.

(Mallapur is a senior analyst and Salve is a programme manager with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post How 335 MPs Grew Rs 6-Crore Richer Between 2014 And 2019 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

MPs from Meghalaya, Delhi, Chandigarh, Gujarat and Sikkim led the country in utilising their funds, while Goa had the highest percentage (22.54%) left unutilised. Nagaland saw no project recommended or amount sanctioned in the priority health and family welfare sectors, while Jammu & Kashmir saw only Rs 1.43 lakh sanctioned and Himachal Pradesh, just Rs 5,000.

The Members of Parliament (MP) Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) enables parliamentarians to recommend developmental work in their constituencies, based on local needs. Under the scheme, each MP is allocated Rs 5 crore per year of their tenure, to suggest works to be taken up in districts in his/her constituency to the district collector, the top administrative official in each district.

Preference is given to works relating to priority sectors, such as provision of drinking water, public health, education, sanitation, roads, etc. The role of MPs is limited to recommending works. Thereafter, it is the responsibility of the district authorities to sanction, execute and complete the works within the stipulated time period, as per MPLADS guidelines. The funds are non-lapsable i.e., if any portion of an MP’s yearly fund remains unutilised at the end of the term, it is transferred to the next elected MP from the respective constituency.

Note that the formula used in the government’s MPLADS data to calculate the utilisation percentage is: expenditure incurred by the district authority divided by funds released by the government. As the expenditure incurred is out of the amount available with the district authority and includes interest and previous unspent money, the utilisation percentage can be greater than the funds released; thus giving an unrealistic higher-than-100% result in some cases.

IndiaSpend calculated the utilisation percentage by dividing the expenditure incurred by the district authority with the final amount of MPLADS funds available with the authority for spending on works recommended by an MP, which may include unlapsed MPLADS funds.

Utilisation of MPLADS funds in priority sectors
In the education sector, West Bengal (Rs 44.41 crore) saw the highest funds sanctioned by district authorities on the recommendation of MPs of the 16th Lok Sabha, followed by Punjab (Rs 35.62 crore) and Tamil Nadu (Rs 27.85 crore).

The least amount sanctioned for education works was in Nagaland, with just Rs 100 sanctioned for four works. The amount sanctioned in Mizoram was Rs 20 lakh followed by Rs 35.93 lakh in Jammu and Kashmir.

West Bengal (Rs 39.97 crore) and Punjab (Rs 9.7 crore) also lead in terms of highest funds sanctioned for health and family welfare works, followed by Gujarat (Rs 6.25 crore) and Tamil Nadu (Rs 4.64 crore), respectively.

Nagaland saw no project recommended or amount sanctioned under MPLADS in the health and family welfare sector. In Jammu & Kashmir, only Rs 1.43 lakh was sanctioned, while in Himachal Pradesh only Rs 5,000 was sanctioned.

For sanitation and public health, yet again Punjab and West Bengal lead, with Rs 23.46 crore and Rs 17 crore sanctioned, respectively, followed by Rs 9.72 crore in Telangana. Nagaland and Himachal Pradesh lagged in this priority sector too. Almost nothing was sanctioned under MPLADS for sanitation and public health in Nagaland, while Rs 12 lakh was sanctioned in Himachal Pradesh, followed by Rs 14 lakh in Uttarakhand.

In the drought-hit regions of Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra, 27% of MPLADS funds–or Rs 58.1 crore of Rs 211.68 crore–remained unspent. In the Amravati region of Vidarbha comprising Akola, Amravati, Buldhana, Yavatmal and Washim districts, out of Rs 71.2 crore available Rs 57.03 crore was spent, with Rs 14.18 crore unspent.

In Marathwada region, comprising Aurangabad, Beed, Jalna, Osmanabad, Nanded, Latur, Parbhani, Hingoli districts–out of Rs 140.48 crore available, Rs 118.5 crore was spent while Rs 21.96 crore lies unspent.

MPs with highest utilisation of funds

 

The top five MPs upon whose recommendations funds were utilised the most (99.9%) by district authorities are Rama Kishore Singh (Vaishali, Bihar), Neiphiu Rio (Nagaland), Harsh Vardhan (Chandni Chowk, Delhi), Conrad Sangma (Tura, Meghalaya) and TG Venkatesh Babu (Chennai North, Tamil Nadu). Dipsinh Shankarsinh Rathod, MP for Sabarkantha, Gujarat, saw 99.8% of his MPLADS funds utilised based on his recommendations.

Rama Kishore Singh was entitled to Rs 25 crore for his full 5-year tenure, out of which Rs 22.5 crore was released. The district authority spent Rs 24.40 crore out of Rs 24.41 crore available, which included interest and previous unspent amount. The highest amount sanctioned by the district authorities for works recommended by MPs in Bihar was Rs 6.5 crore for the construction of road, railways, bridges and pathways.

Harsh Vardhan’s entitlement was Rs 25 crore, out of which Rs 10 crore was released by the government. The district authority spent Rs 14.08 crore out of Rs 14.09 crore; Rio’s district authority spent Rs 20.11 crore out of Rs 20.12 crore, Sangma’s district authority Rs 10.07 crore out of Rs 10.08 crore and Babu’s district authority spent Rs 26.80 crore out of Rs 26.84 crore available. Rathod’s district authority spent Rs 21.08 out of Rs 21.11 crore.

MPs with least utilisation of funds
Five MPs recording zero utilisation of their MPLADS funds all had truncated tenures, ranging from 1 to 2.5 years. The government released Rs 17.5 crore based on recommendations by Nana Falgunrao Patole, Lok Sabha MP for Bhandara-Gondiya from May 2014 to December 2017, but none was spent by the district authority, making the utilisation percentage zero. Other MPs who had their funds released by the government but none was spent by their respective district authorities are Sarbananda Sonowal (Rs 7.5 crore), MP from Lakhimpur, Assam from May 2014 to May 2016 and Srihari Kadiyam (Rs 5 crore), MP for Warangal in Telangana for just over a year, from May 2014 to June 2015.

Two MPs elected late in the term of the 16th Lok Sabha, Sarfaraz Alam elected as MP for Araria in March 2018 and Venkatapura Subbaiah Ugrappa, elected MP from Ballari in Karnataka in November 2018, had their Rs 2.5 crore each unutilised.

States with highest utilisation of MPLADS funds

The top five states with highest percentage of MPLADS funds utilised are Meghalaya, Delhi, Chandigarh, Gujarat and Sikkim. Here is how MP funds were spent in each of these states.

In Meghalaya, the district authorities utilised 92.17% (Rs 40.26 crore out of Rs 43.68 crore) of the MPLADS funds available. A total of 282 roads and railways projects worth Rs 7.4 crore were sanctioned. Rs 2.6 crore was sanctioned for the construction of community centres, public facility schemes, boundary walls, etc. Rs 1.47 crore was sanctioned for the sports sector and Rs 85.4 lakh for public toilets and bathrooms, drains and other works under sanitation sector. For education works, Rs 72 lakh was sanctioned and for drinking water facilities like water tanks, tubewells and other schemes, Rs 57 lakh.

The district authorities of Delhi used 91.46% (Rs 122.9 crore out of Rs 134.47 crore) of the fund available with MPs, with Rs 11.48 crore unspent.

The Chandigarh government released Rs 22.5 crore on the recommendation of MP Kirron Kher. The district authorities spent Rs 25.42 crore (91.21%) out of the Rs 27.87 crore available. Rs 17.849 lakh was sanctioned for the construction of public toilets and bathrooms in Chandigarh.

The district authorities of Gujarat used Rs 559.39 crore out of Rs 613.37 crore (91.20%) of MPLADS money available. In Gujarat, around Rs 56.71 crore were sanctioned by the district authorities for 2,743 projects under roads and rail sector. Rs 26.75 crore were sanctioned for projects under public facilities sector, Rs 8.6 crore for education sector, Rs 8.44 crore for drinking water facilities, Rs 6.25 crore for health and family welfare sector, Rs 4.91 crore for electricity sector and Rs 2.97 crore for sanitation and public health.

The district authorities of Sikkim used Rs 20.16 crore of MPLADS fund out of Rs 22.23 crore (90.69%) available. The highest amount sanctioned was Rs 720.87 lakh for construction of flood control embankments, public irrigation facilities, public ground water recharging and other schemes under irrigation sector. Under education works, Rs 623.48 lakh was sanctioned for projects, buildings and computer for government educational institutions, and other schemes. Rs 451 lakh were sanctioned for public facilities like community centres, bus stops, crematoriums and other schemes. Rs 355.41 lakh were sanctioned for roads and railways sector, Rs 277.092 for electricity facilities and Rs 242.5 lakh for sanitation and public health.

States with lowest utilisation of MPLADS fund
Goa has the highest percentage of unutilised MPLADS funds, followed by Lakshadweep, Rajasthan, Assam and Tripura. In Goa, 22.54% of MPLADS funds available with district authorities lie unutilised. Out of Rs 35.41 crore, Rs 7.98 crore are unspent. Lakshadweep, the smallest Lok Sabha constituency by number of electors, used 78.14 % of MPLADS funds available, whereas Rs 4.6 crore out of Rs 21.04 crore (21.86%) lies unspent.

In Rajasthan, 21.46% of MPLADS funds available with the district authorities are unutilised. Out of Rs 531.05 crore, Rs 113.97 crore lie unspent. Assam and Tripura have 19.81% and 18.6% of unutilised fund respectively. In Assam, Rs 61.03 crore out of Rs 308.12 crore lie unspent while in Tripura, Rs 7.61 crore out of Rs 40.92 crore lie unspent.

(Ahmad is an intern at IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post MPs’ Development Funds Unspent = Cost Of Building 100,000 Houses After Cyclone Gaja appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post MPs submit petition for Impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a hard-hitting report addressed to India’s lawmakers, the NGO HAQ: Centre for Child Rights seeks to remind the MPs that their lofty sentiments about children being “the future of our country” are not much use since they are blind to the reality that “children are citizens today and their rights and needs need to be protected and addressed today”.    
 
Citing statistics, the report points out that though children make up one-third (444 million) of India’s total population, only 5% of all questions raised in the two houses of Parliament are about them and a meagre 3.32% of the budget is allocated towards their welfare.
 
The report titled, ‘Parliamentary Watch, Budget Session, Monsoon Session & Winter Session 2005’, observes: “Poor learning scores, poor health indicators and large number of children who are victims of violence and education remain the reality of this country. How do we propose to march into a ‘developed India’ if these realities remain?”
 
It urges our Parliamentarians to remember that, “These children are also adults in the making and hence as a country – As we sow, so shall we reap!”
 
On a more positive note, however, the report observes, “Parliamentarians are becoming more child friendly as the share of attention paid to children (in terms of the questions raised) has increased over the years. When we began this analysis it was only 3% of the questions raised – some years even lower”.
 
Other highlights: 

• The Lok Sabha has many more questions related to children discussed (57 % of all the child related questions in all the three sessions) than Rajya Sabha. Wonder why is that so?
•  Education continues to be the issue that draws most attention. 652 questions or 46% of the child related questions were on education. It is as if address education sector is addressed, all rights related issues for children are covered All other issues take a back seat. 
• The issues that have drawn attention are the drop-out rates and out of school children, drinking water and toilet facilities in schools.
•  42 questions concerning children with disability were raised in the Budget Session (28) and one in the winter session. They were related to education and infrastructural facilities and services. Only one question in the whole year related to mental disability. 
• 328 questions or 23% questions related to various child protection issues.
•  24 questions were raised regarding child abuse/ sexual abuse and the POCSO act. One question pertained to victim compensation. 
• Given that 2015 was the year of “Juvenile Justice” with heated debates on the amendment to the law, it is not surprising that 24 questions were on this issue – a number of them relating to crimes committed and the law.
•  2015 was also the year when the amendment of the child labour law was being  discussed. 63 questions were raised on child labour. 6 of these questions related to employment of children in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). The rest related to bonded child labour, children employed in hazardous occupations, rescue and rehabilitation. 
• 26 questions were raised on missing children and tracking systems to find them. 
• 24 questions were raised on child trafficking. 
• 12 % questions or 170 questions related to health of children – these included questions related to malnutrition, immunisation and diseases such as Polio and TB.

 The full report may be read here.
 

The post NGO Report Urges MPs to Wake Up to the plight of One-third of India’s Citizens: Children appeared first on SabrangIndia.