PolicyMigration in India and the impact of the lockdown on migrantsMadhunika Iyer- June 10, 2020India has been in lockdown sinceMarch 25, 2020.  During this time, activities not contributing to the production and supply of essential goods and services werecompletelyorpartiallysuspended.  Passenger trains and flights werehalted.  The lockdown has severely impacted migrants, several of whom lost their jobs due to shutting of industries and were stranded outside their native places wanting to get back.  Since then, the government has announced relief measures for migrants, and made arrangements for migrants to return to their native place.  The Supreme Court of India, recognising the problems faced by migrants stranded in different parts of the country,reviewedtransportation and relief arrangements made by the government.  On June 9, the Courtdirectedcentral and state governments to complete transportation of remaining stranded migrants and expand focus of relief measures to facilitate employment for returning migrants.  In this blog, we highlight some facts about migration in India, summarise key relief measures announced by the government and directives issued by the Supreme Court for the migrant population in relation to the lockdown.Overview of MigrationMigration is the movement of people away from their usual place of residence, across either internal (within country) or international (across countries) borders.  The latest government data on migration comes from the 2011 Census.  As per the Census, India had 45.6 crore migrants in 2011 (38% of the population) compared to 31.5 crore migrants in 2001 (31% of the population).   Between 2001 and 2011, while population grew by 18%, the number of migrants increased by 45%.  In 2011, 99% of total migration was internal and immigrants (international migrants) comprised 1%.[1]Patterns of migrationInternal migrant flows can be classified on the basis of origin and destination.  One kind of classification is: i) rural-rural, ii) rural-urban, iii) urban-rural and iv) urban-urban.  As per the 2011 census, there were 21 crore rural-rural migrants which formed 54% of classifiable internal migration (the Census did not classify 5.3 crore people as originating from either rural or urban areas).  Rural-urban and urban-urban movement accounted for around 8 crore migrants each.   There were around 3 crore urban-rural migrants (7% of classifiable internal migration).Another way to classify migration is: (i) intra-state, and (ii) inter-state.  In 2011, intra-state movement accounted for almost 88% of all internal migration (39.6 crore persons).1There is variation across states in terms of inter-state migration flows.  According to the 2011 Census, there were 5.4 crore inter-state migrants.  As of 2011, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were the largest source of inter-state migrants while Maharashtra and Delhi were the largest receiver states.  Around 83 lakh residents of Uttar Pradesh and 63 lakh residents of Bihar had moved either temporarily or permanently to other states.  Around 60 lakh people from across India had migrated to Maharashtra by 2011.Figure1: Inter-state Migration(in lakh)Note: A net out-migrant state is one where more people migrate out of the state than those that migrate into the state.  Net in-migration is the excess of incoming migrants over out-going migrants.Sources: Census 2011; PRS.Reasons for internal migration and size of migrant labour forceAs of 2011, majority (70%) of intra-state migration was due to reasons of marriage and family with variation between male and female migrants.  While 83% of females moved for marriage and family, the corresponding figure for males was 39%.  Overall, 8% of people moved within a state for work (21% of male migrants and 2% of female migrants).Movement for work was higher among inter-state migrants- 50% of male and 5% of female inter-state migrants.  As per the Census, there were 4.5 crore migrant workers in 2011.  However, according to theWorking Group Reporton Migration, the Census underestimates the migrant worker population.   Female migration is recorded as movement due to family since that is the primary reason.  However, many women take up employment after migrating which is not reflected in the number of women moving for work-related reasons.[2]According to theEconomic Survey, 2016-17, Census data also underestimates temporary migrant labour movement.  In 2007-08, the NSSOestimatedthe size of India’s migrant labour at seven crore (29% of the workforce).  The Economic Survey, 2016-17,estimatedsix croreinter-statelabour migrantsbetween 2001-2011.  The Economic Survey also estimated that in each yearbetween 2011-2016, on average 90 lakh people travelled for work.Figure2: Reasons for intra-state migrationSources: Census 2011; PRS.Figure3:Reasons for inter-state migrationSources: Census 2011; PRS.Issues faced by migrant labourArticle 19(1)(e) of the Constitution, guarantees all Indian citizens the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public or protection of any scheduled tribe.  However, people migrating for work face key challenges including: i) lack of social security and health benefits and poor implementation of minimum safety standards law, ii) lack of portability of state-provided benefits especially food provided through the public distribution system (PDS) and iii) lack of access to affordable housing and basic amenities in urban areas.2Poor implementation of protections under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 (ISMW Act)The ISMW Actprovidescertain protections for inter-state migrant workers.  Labour contractors recruiting migrants are required to: (i) be licensed, (ii) register migrant workers with the government authorities, and (iii) arrange for the worker to be issued a passbook recording their identity.  Guidelines regarding wages and protections (including accommodation, free medical facilities, protective clothing) to be provided by the contractor are also outlined in the law.In December 2011, areportby the Standing Committee on Labour observed that registration of workers under the ISMW Act was low and implementation of protections outlined in the Act was poor.   The report concluded that the Central government had not made any concrete and fruitful efforts to ensure that contractors and employers mandatorily register the workers employed with them enabling access to benefits under the Act.Lack of portability of benefitsMigrants registered to claim access to benefits at one locationlose accessupon migration to a different location.  This is especially true of access to entitlements under the PDS.  Ration card required to access benefits under the PDS is issued by state governments and is not portable across states.  This system excludes inter-state migrants from the PDS unless they surrender their card from the home state and get a new one from the host state.Lack of affordable housing and basic amenities in urban areasThe proportion of migrants in urban population is 47%.1In 2015, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairsidentifiedmigrants in urban areas as the largest population needing housing in cities.  There isinadequate supplyof low-income ownership and rental housing options.  This leads to the spread of informal settlements and slums.  The Prime Minister Awaas Yojana (PMAY) is a central government scheme to help the economically weaker section and low-income group access housing.Assistanceunder the scheme includes:  i) slum rehabilitation, ii) subsidised credit for home loans, iii) subsidies up to Rs 1.5 lakh to either construct a new house or enhance existing houses on their own and iv) increasing availability of affordable housing units in partnership with the private sector.  Since housing is a state subject, there is variation in approach of States towards affordable housing.2Steps taken by the government with regard to migrant labour during the lockdownDuring the lockdown, several inter-state migrant workers tried to return to their home state. Due to the suspension public transport facilities, migrantsstartedwalking towards their home state on foot.  Subsequently, buses and Shramik special trains were permitted by the central government subject to coordination between states.[3],[4]Between May 1 and June 3, more than58 lakhmigrants were transported through specially operated trains and41 lakhwere transported by road.  Measures taken by the government to aid migrants include-Transport:On March 28, the central governmentauthorisedstates to use the State Disaster Response Fund to provide accommodation to traveling migrants.  States were advised to set up relief camps along highways with medical facilities to ensure people stay in these camps while the lockdown is in place.In anorderissued on April 29, the Ministry of Home Affairs allowed states to co-ordinate individually to transport migrants using buses.  On May 1, the Indian Railwaysresumedpassenger movement (for the first time since March 22) with Shramik Special trains to facilitate movement of migrants stranded outside their home state.  Between May 1 and June 3, Indian Railways operated 4,197 Shramik trains transporting more than 58 lakh migrants.  Top states from where Shramik trains originated are Gujarat and Maharashtra and states where the trains terminated are Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.[5]Note that these trends largely correspond to the migration patterns seen in the 2011 census data.Food distribution:On April 1, the Ministry of Health and Family Affairsdirectedstate governments to operate relief camps for migrant workers with arrangements for food, sanitation and medical services.On May 14, under thesecond tranche of the Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan, the Finance Minister announced that free food grains would be provided to migrant workers who do not have a ration card for two months.  The measure is expected to benefit eight crore migrant workers and their families.   The Finance Minister also announced that One Nation One Ration card will be implemented by March 2021, to provide portable benefits under the PDS.  This will allow access to ration from any Fair Price Shop in India.Housing:The Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan alsolauncheda scheme for Affordable Rental Housing Complexes for Migrant Workers and Urban Poor to provide affordable rental housing units under PMAY.  The schemeproposesto use existing housing stock under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Housing Mission (JnNURM) as well as incentivise public and private agencies to construct new affordable units for rent.  Further, additional funds have been allocated for the credit linked subsidy scheme under PMAY for middle income group.Financial aid:Some state governments (likeBihar,RajasthanandMadhya Pradesh) announced one-time cash transfers for returning migrant workers.  UP governmentannouncedthe provision of maintenance allowance of Rs 1,000 for returning migrants who are required to quarantine.Directions by the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court reviewed the situation of migrant labourers stranded in different parts of the country, noting inadequacies and lapses in government response to the situation.On May 26, the Court issued anorderto the central and state governments to submit a response detailing all measures taken by the respective governments for migrant labourers.On May 28, the Court provided interimdirectionsto the central and state/UT governments for ensuring relief to the migrant workers: i) no train or bus fare should be charged to migrant workers, ii) free food should be provided to stranded migrants by the concerned State/UT government and this information should be publicised, iii) States should simplify and speed-up the process of registration of migrants for transport and those registered should be provided transportation at the earliest and iv) the state receiving migrants should provide last-mile transport, health screening and other facilities free of cost.Reiterating their earlier directions, on June 5 (full order issued on June 9), the Supreme Court furtherdirectedthe Central and state/UT governments to ensure: i) transportation of all stranded workers wanting to return to their native place is completed within 15 days, ii) identification of migrant workers is immediately completed and the process of migrant registration be decentralised to police stations and local authorities, iii) records of returning migrant labourers are kept including details about place of earlier employment and nature of their skills, and iv) counselling centres are set-up at the block level to provide information about central and state government schemes and other avenues of employment.  The Court also directed the state/UT governments to consider withdrawal of prosecution/complaints under Section 51 of Disaster Management Act filed against migrant labourers who allegedly violated lockdown orders.[1]Census, 2011, Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs.[2]Report of Working Group on Migration, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, January 2017,http://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/1566.pdf.[3]Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A), Ministry of Home Affairs, April 29, 2020,https://prsindia.org/files/covid19/notifications/4233.IND_Movement_of_Persons_April_29.pdf.[4]Order No. 40-3/2020-DM-I (A), Ministry of Home Affairs, May 1, 2020,https://prsindia.org/files/covid19/notifications/IND_Special_Trains_May_1.jpeg.[5]“Indian Railways operationalizes 4197 “Shramik Special” trains till 3rd June, 2020 (0900hrs) across the country and transports more than 58 lacs passengers to their home states through “Shramik Special” trains since May 1”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Railways, June 3, 2020,https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1629043.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»