MiscellaneousModernization of Police Forces in Indian statesadmin_2- April 8, 2010By Rohit & AnirudhA modified 'Modernization of State Police Forces' scheme was started by the central government in 2000-01. One of the objectives was to help police forces in meeting the emerging challenges to internal security in the form of terrorism, naxalism etc. The scheme aims to modernize police forces in terms of:Mobility (including purchase of bullet proof and mine proof vehicles)WeaponryCommunication SystemsTrainingForensic Science Laboratory/ Finger Printing BureauEquipmentsBuildingsUnder this scheme, States have been clubbed into different categories and Centre-State cost sharing is category specific. Since 2005-06, States have been categorized as category ‘A’ and ‘B’ with 100% and 75% Central funding respectively. All the North Eastern States, namely Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim have been placed in category ‘A’ and thus, are entitled to receive 100% Central assistance for implementation of their annual approved plans. Recently, CAG decided to evaluate the working of the scheme and commissioned ‘performance audit’ reviews covering select general category and special category States. Each review covers a contiguous five year period between 2000 and 2007, but varies across selected states. For the periods under review, each state had a plan outlay (the total amount proposed to be spent in modernizing the state's police forces). However, in most cases, the actual release of funds fell significantly short of this outlay - in some cases the Centre did not contribute its share, in others the States lagged behind. For instance, in the case of Bihar, the Centre released only 56% of its share; while in the case of Rajasthan and West Bengal, the States did not release any funds at all. The graph below shows the actual releases by the Centre and the States (as percentages of their share in the proposed outlays):Further, even the funds that were released were not fully utilized. Thus, the amount finally spent fell significantly short of the initial proposal. The graph below shows the actual expenditure by State:Following are some of the other main findings from the CAG report:Table 1: Summary of main findings in the CAG audit for different states for Modernisation of State Police ForcesPurpose for which money was sanctionedSummary of CAG FindingsPlanning(Every state has to propose an Annual Action Plan every year. The plan is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and money is released as per the plan.)§Submissions by the states to the MHA were delayed.§There were also delays in the clearance granted by the MHA.§In various states such as,a)Andhra Pradesh – the government spent money on works not covered by the Annual Action Plan.b)Bihar– Persistent delays in preparation of the Plan by the state police.c)West Bengal– the plans drawn up by the state did not include items covered under the scheme.Mobility§Overall shortage of vehicles was observed. Most of the new vehicles replaced the old ones.§The police response time was too long in some states.§To give examples from some states:a)Andhra Pradesh – 58 percent of vehicles procured were utilised for replacing old vehicles.b)Bihar– the shortage of vehicles was 43 percent.c)Uttar Pradesh – 2400 vehicles were procured against a shortage of nearly 10,000 vehicles.Residential and non-residential buildings§There were considerable delays in construction of buildings in most states. Consequently, police forces’ own security was in jeopardy.§In states such as:a)Andhra Pradesh – 53 percent of staff quarters and 43 percent of official buildings were not completed (2007).b)Bihar– The total requirement of housing was nearly 60,000. Only six percent of this were included in the Plan.c)Jharkhand – District Control rooms remained non-functional because of shortage of manpower.Weapons§ Police force in states continue to depend on outdated weapons.§Shortages of weapons also happened as acquisition from ordnance factories was very slow.§The weapons that were procured were mostly kept in the district headquarters.§In some states such as,a)Bihar– AK-47s were kept at the disposal of bodyguards of VIPs.b)West Bengal – Adequate weapons were not supplied to extremist prone police stations.Communication§Police Telecommunication Networks were not set up successfully in some states. In others, network was functional only up to the district level.§Shortages of various communication equipments were also observed.§In some states such as,a)Bihar- The Police Telecommunication Network system (costing Rs. 4.96 crore) remained non-functional due to non-construction of tower.b)Maharashtra– Of the 850 purchased Remote Station Units, 452 were lying in stores.Forensic Science Laboratory/ Finger Printing Bureau§In most States the Forensic Science Laboratories lacked adequate infrastructure.§In the absence of automatic finger print identification systems, investigation was being done manually in some States.§In some states such as,a)Maharashtra- There were significant delays in receipt and installation. There was also shortage (284 vacant posts) of technical manpower.b)West Bengal- Performance of the Forensic ScienceLaboratory was poor and in some cases, the delay in issue of investigation reports was as highas 45 months.Training§It was observed that the percentage of police personnel trained was very low.§Training infrastructure was also inadequate.§In some states such as,a)Bihar - Only 10 per cent of total force was trained.b)West Bengal- Live training was not imparted for handling useful weapons and this severely affected the performance of police forces.Sources: CAG Compendium of Performance Audit Reviews on Modernisation of Police Force; PRS.Note:The audit has been done broadly from 2000 to 2007. Consequently, the period of audit for different states may vary.Table 1: Summary of main findings in the CAG audit for different states for Modernisation of State Police ForcesPurpose for which money was sanctionedSummary of CAG FindingsPlanning(Every state has to propose an Annual Action Plan every year. The plan is approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs and money is released as per the plan.)§Submissions by the states to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) were delayed.§There were also delays in the clearance granted by the MHA.§In various states such as,a)Andhra Pradesh – the government spent Rs 32 crore on works not covered by the Annual Action Plan.b)Bihar– Persistent delays in preparation of the Plan by the state police.c)West Bengal– the plans drawn up by the state did not include items covered under the scheme.Mobility§Overall shortage of vehicles was observed. Most of the new vehicles replaced the old ones, and no additions were made.§The police response time was too long in some states.§To give examples from some states:a)Andhra Pradesh – 58 percent of vehicles procured were utilised for replacing old vehicles.b)Bihar– the shortage of vehicles was 43 percent.c)Uttar Pradesh – 2400 vehicles were procured against a shortage of nearly 10,000 vehicles. 203 ambassador cars were procured, though only 55 were approved by the MHA.Residential and non-residential buildings§There were considerable delays in construction of buildings in most states. Consequently, police forces’ own security was in jeopardy. Satisfaction levels with the housing provided were also very low.§In states such as:a)Andhra Pradesh – 53 percent of staff quarters and 43 percent of official buildings were not completed (2007).b)Bihar– The total requirement of housing was nearly 60,000. Only six percent of this were included in the Plan, and only 1045 units were completed by 2006.c)Jharkhand – District Control rooms remained non-functional even after spending Rs 2 crore because of shortage of manpower.Weapons§It was observed that the police force in states continue to depend on outdated weapons.§Shortages of weapons also happened as acquisition from ordnance factories was very slow.§The weapons that were procured were mostly kept in the district headquarters.§In some states such as,a)Bihar– AK-47s were kept at the disposal of bodyguards of VIPs.b)West Bengal – Adequate weapons were not supplied to extremist prone police stations.Communication§Police Telecommunication Networks were not set up successfully in some states. In others, network was functional only up to the district level.§Shortages of various communication equipments were also observed.§In some states such as,a)Bihar- The Police Telecommunication Network system (costing Rs. 4.96 crore) remained non-functional due to non-construction of tower.b)Maharashtra– Of the 850 purchased Remote Station Units, 452 were lying in stores.Forensic Science Laboratory/ Finger Printing Bureau§In most States the Forensic Science Laboratories lacked adequate infrastructure.§In the absence of automatic finger print identification systems, investigation was being done manually in some States.§In some states such as,a)Maharashtra- There were significant delays in receipt and installation. There was also shortage (284 vacant posts) of technical manpower.b)West Bengal- Performance of the Forensic ScienceLaboratory was poor and in some cases, the delay in issue of investigation reports was as highas 45 months.Training§It was observed that the percentage of police personnel trained was very low.§Training infrastructure was also inadequate.§In some states such as,a)Bihar - Only 10 per cent of total force was trained.b)West Bengal- Live training was not imparted for handling useful weapons and this severely affected the performance of police forces.Sources: CAG Compendium of Performance Audit Reviews on Modernisation of Police Force; PRS.Note:The audit has been done broadly from 2000 to 2007. Consequently, the period of audit for different states may vary.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»
MiscellaneousModernization of Police Forces in Indian statesadmin_2- April 8, 2010