Final day, CPP conference
The three-day XIII Conference on Public Policy and Management themed around ‘Inclusion & Exclusion: Policy & Practice’, hosted by the Centre for Public Policy at IIM Bangalore, concluded on August 25 (Saturday) at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi. The valedictory talk on ‘Emerging Skill Development & Regulatory Ecosystem – A Public Policy Perspective’ was delivered by Dr. K P Krishnan, Secretary, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Govt. of India.
Observing that an emphasis on soft skills and life skills can fetch a premium within the changing structure of the Indian economy, he said it is now necessary to evolve programs in skilling to cater to these requirements. “Initiatives for the under-served segments of society are also being taken up under inclusion schemes,” he added.
The panel discussion on ‘Terms of Reference of the Fifteenth Finance Commission’ had Arghya Sengupta, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Balveer Arora, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and Pinaki Chakraborty, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy as panelists. It was moderated by M Govinda Rao, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
Prof Rao kicked off the discussion by saying macro stabilization and redistribution are predominantly a central function and, on that basis, broad-based taxes go to the union government. “But at the same time, several functions are at the state level – education, health, sanitation etc. So, there is a mismatch in the revenue and expenditure between the states and the union. Thus, the Constitution makers foresaw the need for an independent body, neutral between the states and the union, to negotiate the financial relations between the states and the union – established not by the government, but by the president on the country,” said Prof Rao.
Taking forward the discussion, Arghya Sengupta said, “We have a Centre-heavy federal structure for macroeconomic stability reasons. This can be seen in three ways – division of power between the Centre and the states, all residual powers reside with the Centre, also the Union government is responsible for collecting a large number of taxes, which then has to be redistributed to the states. Articles 270, 275 and 282 of the Constitution are the critical aspects of the fiscal federalism of India.”
Political Scientist Prof. Balveer Arora said, “There is a larger issue around the credibility of autonomous institutions and it raises questions about the future of the federal system. The federal system today is different from what it existed during the period of the first ten Finance Commissions.”
“The primary job of the Finance Commission is to assess the needs of Centre and the states and to allocate resources accordingly. From the 14th Finance Commission onwards, there is a use of 2011 census population numbers (in part, 15% weight) to assess the needs and has been completely based on 2011 population for the 15th finance commission. Almost 91% of transfer is into form of tax devolution and the rest has been in grants. If the 15th finance commission has to take into account all the conditions in the terms of reference – including the incentives to states, and other central agendas – either the share of tax devolution has to go down, or to increase the total corpus of transfer,” concluded Prof. Pinaki Chakraborty.
The panel, ‘Faster Courts for Faster Growth?’, on Day 3 of the conference, was moderated by Prof. Anil B Suraj, Centre for Public Policy, IIMB, and featured Supreme Court advocate Jayant Mehta, Prof. Mrinal Satish, National Law University, Delhi, and author and academic Anuj Bhuwania.
Pointing out that there are about three crore cases pending before courts across India, Jayant Mehta said between 2006-18, pendency before the Supreme Court increased by 36%, High Courts by 17% and Subordinate Courts by 7%. “The disposal rate however, has stayed between 55% to 59% in the Supreme Court, at 28% in the High Courts. There are numerous matters of economic import that find their way to the Court such as the 2G Scam, Coal Block case, and the liquor vends case. Overnight, these cases had severe economic impacts, which have not adequately been studied. The pace of decision-making is just as important as the process of decision-making. The budgetary allocation to the judiciary is about 0.01% of the GDP. Skilled judges are important to decision-making, as are capable and competent lawyers. A faster court must not compromise on quality. Increasingly we find that the courts have become a drag on the economy,” he explained.
Despite these hurdles, Jayant Mehta said, there are many reforms that have been attempted.
According to Mrinal Satish, criminal law has to be clear, concise and consistent. “It’s not faster courts, but courts that produce certainty of outcome that is more important,” he said.
Anuj Bhuwania said, “There is a definite demand for speedy justice. A huge problem too is that no attempts to heed suggestions by academia and research organisations have been made.”
The three-day conference was well attended by policymakers, practitioners, academicians and members of the media, sparking interesting conversations and discussions.