Parliamentary panel questions rationale behind not increasing MGNREGS allocation
parliamentary panel
on Monday questioned the government's rationale behind not increasing the allocation of funds under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Scheme
(MGNREGS) and expressed concern over the fact that the allocation for the scheme has been kept "static" since the revised estimates of 2023-24.
In a report tabled in
Parliament
on Monday, the Department Related Parliamentary Committee on
Rural Development
and Panchayati Raj said proper implementation of the scheme depends on "timely and adequate" allocations.
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals
By Vaibhav Sisinity
View Program
Finance
Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4
By CA Himanshu Jain
View Program
Artificial Intelligence
AI For Business Professionals Batch 2
By Ansh Mehra
View Program
"The Committee are concerned to note that the allocation of funds under
MGNREGA
have been kept static at Rs 86,000 crore since the Revised Estimates for 2023-24," the panel said in an action-taken report.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder
War Thunder
Play Now
Undo
It said since the scheme ensures employment to rural poor and the downtrodden sections of the society, its proper implementation totally hinges upon timely and adequate allocation of funds to all the states and Union territories.
"Keeping this in view, the Committee are unable to comprehend the rationale for not increasing the allocation of funds under MGNREGA since 2023-24," it said.
Live Events
The panel said with the MGNREGS being a demand-driven scheme, it had recommended to the
Department of Rural Development
(DoRD) that the requirement for
fund allocation
should be looked afresh and the funds can be raised at the Revised Estimates stage accordingly.
In its action-taken reply, the DoRD said the release of funds to states is a continuous and demand-driven process.
The DoRD said the Centre is committed to ensuring the timely availability of funds based on the actual requirement for work on the ground, and as and when additional financial requirements arise, the ministry continues to engage with the Ministry of Finance for the provision of requisite funds.
The committee, however, said it finds the reply "stereotypical in nature, delineating only the provisions of the scheme without addressing the core issue with the seriousness it warrants".
"The Committee, therefore, feel that there is an immediate need for a much more concerted and synchronised action between the nodal ministry and Ministry of Finance to ensure uninterrupted implementation of the scheme," it said.
"In view of this, the Committee reiterate their recommendation for increased allocation of funds to MGNREGA to achieve its targets," it added.
According to budget documents, an amount of Rs 89,153.71 crore was spent on the MGNREGS in 2023-24. In 2024-25, an amount of Rs 86,000 crore was allocated to the flagship scheme in the budget and the revised estimate later that year was also Rs 86,000 crore. In 2025-26, the allocation for the scheme was again Rs 86,000 crore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘A regime of perpetual tolling': Public Accounts Committee flags current tolling system, recommends creation of AERA-like tariff authority to ensure fairness
A parliamentary committee has expressed concerns over the current tolling system, highlighting that charges are often levied indefinitely irrespective of road quality, traffic volume, user affordability or recovery of project cost. The committee said the practice was formalised by a 2008 amendment to the Fee Rules allowing for 'perpetual tolling' even after project costs are recovered. While toll rates are revised annually based on a fixed 3 per cent increment and Wholesale Price Index (WPI) adjustments, there is no independent mechanism to assess if these charges are justified by actual operation and maintenance costs, the committee said. '…the Committee observe that the concept of tolling in perpetuity was first introduced through an amendment to the Fee Rules in 2008, allowing continued collection of user fees even after the recovery of project costs. This provision was further clarified and codified through the 2023 amendment to the Fee Rules, which explicitly permits tolling to continue beyond the end of the concession period, thereby formalising a regime of perpetual tolling,' said the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in its report submitted to the Parliament on Tuesday. According to the report, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) acknowledged this, adding it has initiated a study with NITI Aayog to revise the user fee determination framework, including base rates, inflation indexing, and concession structures. Creation of new tariff authority recommended The PAC further recommended that the ministry should establish a tariff authority, on the lines of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) in the civil aviation sector, to ensure transparency and fairness in toll fixation, collection, and regulation. 'This authority should be mandated to review and determine the periodicity of toll revisions based on certain parameters…The Committee desires that toll collection on any highway stretch must be rationalised and substantially reduced once capital and routine maintenance costs have been recovered. Any continuation of tolls beyond this point should be permitted only if clearly justified and approved by the proposed independent oversight authority,' said the committee. The PAC also said that all existing contracts and publicly funded toll plazas allowing tolling beyond cost recovery must be reviewed to safeguard user interest and uphold the principle of equity in public infrastructure usage. It said that while higher toll charges are justified during the period of concession agreement, continuation after that needs to be justified. Recommendation for refunds, waiver where highways are incomplete The committee also raised the concerns over the cases where tolls continue to be collected even in situations where the essential service — namely, safe, uninterrupted, and timely travel — is not available. This includes highway stretches that are incomplete, under prolonged construction, or marked by serious deficiencies in safety and traffic flow. It recommended that MoRTH and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) should establish a system for automatic toll refund or waiver in cases where the highway is incomplete, unfit, or unavailable fully or under maintenance for use. 'The Committee are particularly concerned by the absence of any institutional mechanism for refunding or waiving toll in such cases, despite the service not being rendered. Charging toll under these conditions not only violates the principle of quid pro quo but also undermines public confidence in the legitimacy of user charges,' said the committee. The data available with the ministry shows that a total of Rs. 61,408 crore was collected as user fees or toll charges in the financial year 2024-25. In 2023-24, the total user fee collection was Rs. 55,882 crore. Similarly, a total of Rs. 48,032 crore in 2022-23, Rs. 33,929 crore in 2021-22 and Rs. 27,927 crore in 2020-21 was collected as user fee.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
BlueStone Jewellery IPO subscribed 66% on Day 3 so far; GMP slips below 1%. Check key details
BlueStone Jewellery and Lifestyle's Rs 1,541 crore IPO has been subscribed 66% overall as per the latest update on the third and final day of bidding. Among investor segments, Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) have shown relatively stronger interest, having subscribed to 85% of their allotted portion. In the grey market, the response to the issue has been lukewarm, with the IPO trading at a modest premium of just 0.4% over its issue price of Rs 517 per share. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program BlueStone Jewellery IPO GMP Today: The latest Grey Market Premium (GMP) for BlueStone Jewellery's IPO is hovering between Rs 2-4 above the issue price of Rs 517 per share. This points to a potential listing price of around Rs 520, implying a modest estimated gain of about 0.4% per share. However, it's important to remember that the Grey Market Premium (GMP) reflects sentiment and demand in an unofficial, unregulated market where shares trade before listing. Live Events BlueStone Jewellery IPO Subscription Status: As of 10:10 AM on Day 2, BlueStone Jewellery's IPO has achieved an overall subscription rate of 66% on the stock exchanges, reflecting a moderate level of investor interest so far. Retail Individual Investors (RIIs) have subscribed to 77% of their allotted 30.60 lakh shares. This indicates a cautious but noticeable participation from smaller investors, suggesting a measured confidence in the offering. Non-Institutional Investors (NIIs)—which include high-net-worth individuals and corporate investors—have subscribed to only 23% of the 45.90 lakh shares allocated to them. This shows a slower uptake from larger investors at this point. Meanwhile, the Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), comprising mutual funds, insurance companies, and other institutional players, have demonstrated relatively stronger interest, subscribing to 85% of their 88.62 lakh share allocation. BlueStone Jewellery IPO – Key Highlights BlueStone Jewellery has announced its initial public offering (IPO) with a price band ranging from Rs 492 to Rs 517 per share. At the upper limit of this band, the company's valuation is estimated to be around Rs 7,823 crore. Ahead of the IPO launch, BlueStone secured Rs 693 crore from anchor investors. The company aims to raise up to Rs 1,541 crore through the IPO, which includes a fresh equity issue worth Rs 820 crore and an offer for sale (OFS) of up to 1.39 crore shares by existing shareholders. Key participants in the OFS include Accel India III (Mauritius), Saama Capital II, Kalaari Capital Partners, Iron Pillar funds, and Sunil Kant Munjal of Hero Enterprise. Investors can apply for a minimum of 29 shares and in multiples thereafter. The issue allocation is divided as 75% for Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), 15% for Non-Institutional Investors (NIIs), and 10% for Retail Investors. BlueStone's shares will be listed on both the BSE and NSE, with the listing date set for August 19. Founded in Bengaluru, BlueStone is a digital-first, omni-channel jewellery retailer offering an extensive collection of diamond, gold, platinum, and studded jewellery. BlueStone Jewellery Financial Overview BlueStone has demonstrated robust revenue growth, with operating income rising at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of nearly 52%, from Rs 771 crore in FY23 to Rs 1,770 crore in FY25. However, it reported a net loss of Rs 222 crore in FY25, up from a Rs 14 crore loss in FY24, primarily due to increased marketing expenses and store expansion. Funds raised from the fresh issue will mainly support working capital requirements of Rs 750 crore, with the remainder allocated toward general corporate purposes. Axis Capital , IIFL Capital Services , and Kotak Mahindra Capital are the book-running lead managers for the IPO, while Kfin Technologies will serve as the registrar. SBI Securities Recommendation: SUBSCRIBE for the Long Term BlueStone has solidified its position as a leading omnichannel jewellery retailer in India, commanding a notable 28–32% share of the omnichannel casual jewellery market. Its strong focus on design innovation and superior product quality has helped maintain healthy gross margins. Additionally, the company's repeat revenue ratio rose to 44.6% in FY25 from 34.7% in FY23, indicating growing customer loyalty and satisfaction. At the upper price band of Rs 517 per share, BlueStone is valued at 4.5x EV/Sales, which is a premium compared to its publicly listed competitors. Nevertheless, its aggressive store expansion over the last two years, coupled with a proven track record of steady revenue growth, positions the company well to capitalise on the rapidly growing, high-margin lightweight jewellery segment. Also read: Apollo Healthtech targets listing by Jan-Mar 2027 As newer stores mature and their sales align with the system-wide average, profitability is expected to improve. Considering these factors, we advise investors to SUBSCRIBE to the IPO at the cut-off price with a long-term investment outlook, the brokerage said. ( Disclaimer : Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump is doubling down on sanctions. Putin is laughing all the way to Alaska.
Donald Trump wants the war in Ukraine to end. Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants the war in Ukraine to end. Many other presidents and prime ministers want the war to end. Vladimir Putin is not one of those presidents. The war in Ukraine has become the political, psychological and economic center of Putin's regime. That basic asymmetry would seem to doom any attempt at a negotiated peace -- it is, in fact, the main reason no meaningful peace negotiations have occurred in the 3 1/2 years since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Trump thinks he has a solution, though. He says he intends to use his negotiating prowess and keep ratcheting up economic pressure until Putin has no choice but to stop the fighting. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Between the bombastic social media posts, the shifting deadlines, the erratic announcements -- one day a White House official says Trump will meet with Putin only after Putin meets with Zelenskyy, another day Trump drops the requirement -- it's easy to overlook the fact that Trump's policy toward Russia largely follows the same failed strategy employed by the Biden administration, the first Trump administration and the Obama administration before that. For more than a decade, the United States has responded to Russian aggression by threatening and gradually imposing economic sanctions. That some of Trump's sanctions take the form of tariffs doesn't alter the nature of the policy. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Become Fluent in Any Language Talkpal AI Sign Up The conventional theory behind sanctions is that economic pressure destabilizes regimes, possibly forcing the leader to change course. In one scenario, widespread hardship -- unemployment, inflation, shortages -- leads to popular discontent, even unrest. In another, a shrinking economy and loss of access to foreign markets anger the elites, who stage a palace coup or at least compel the leader to change direction. The problem with this theory is that it's wrong. When sanctions have an effect, it is usually to immiserate ordinary people. The elites remain wealthy, and the gap between the rich and the poor only grows. Rather than foment resentment against the regime and the elites, this tends to rally society against the country that imposed the sanctions. That enemy, after all, is far away and easily turned into an abstraction, while the elites at home control the media, which frames the conflict. They also control the jobs and the goods, making it much costlier to hate the elites at home than the enemy far away. And beyond a certain level, hardship leads people to withdraw from even thinking about politics, because they have to focus on survival. Live Events As for the palace coup scenario, Russia has shown clearly how sanctions come to have the opposite of their intended effect. Superrich Russians living abroad who found their access to Western markets cut off and some of their assets frozen moved to places like Dubai or returned to Moscow. What else were they going to do? That the economic pie is shrinking doesn't mean that the elites suddenly start conspiring to overthrow the leader -- a risky proposition unlikely to succeed in the best of cases; it means only that they compete harder for what remains of the pie. The conventional model dictates that sanctions be imposed gradually, following stern warnings. This gives the Russian regime time to prepare for the impact: to subsidize domestic production of goods that will no longer be imported (Obama-era sanctions did wonders for Russian farmers and cheese makers), to prioritize new export markets as well as to find third-party countries through which to, say, export oil or import dual-use technology. It also bolsters ties between Russia and countries that are already under U.S. sanctions -- such as Iran, which has become an essential partner in Russia's drone warfare. And still, one presidential administration after another has touted sanctions as its main instrument in getting Putin to change his ways. Joe Biden imposed multiple rounds of sanctions, though none were "devastating," as he had promised. Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on India, ostensibly as a penalty for importing Russian oil, and has promised more secondary tariffs for Russia's other trade partners. Year after year, American presidents do the same thing, expecting different results. In this one way Trump is no crazier than his predecessors. However difficult it is for foreign-policy theorists to grapple with the limitations of the economic pressure approach, for Trump it is all but impossible. Again and again, Trump has shown that he assumes that everyone is motivated by money. He is not alone in this: Many Western analysts have repeatedly suggested that Putin would seek an off-ramp in Ukraine once the war proved costly for Russia and, perhaps more to the point, for him personally. As much as Putin loves wealth, however, he has shown that he loves power even more -- eternal power in his own country, which he wins by expanding Russia's borders, and power in the world at large, which he wins by making other leaders fear him. Trump seems to be unaware that, by meeting with Putin, he is giving Putin exactly what the Russian leader wants -- a demonstration of his power. Trump is giving Putin additional gifts by agreeing to meet with him without Zelenskyy and by sidelining the European Union. Trump is affirming for all of Russia to see what Putin has claimed all along: that the conflict is really between Russia and the United States. The moment Putin walks into the negotiating room, he has gotten everything he wants -- plus an opportunity to make a quip about Alaska as historically Russian land (consider this a prediction). If the meeting does not produce an agreement, Putin loses nothing. Trump, on the other hand, would lose face if he walked out empty-handed. He may be motivated to accept something, anything. The conditions for peace that Russia offered in June were merely a more elaborate display of the four things Putin has consistently demanded: land, including parts of Ukraine that Russia has not occupied; an end to Western military aid to Ukraine; guarantees that Ukraine will never be invited to join NATO; and a change of leadership in Ukraine. Trump can agree to those conditions, but Zelenskyy will never accept them. Putin has very little reason to change his demands. Still, if the Russian leader is inclined to help Trump look good -- a big if -- they may emerge with some kind of a ceasefire agreement. This may be a time-limited ceasefire, contingent on Ukrainian withdrawal from parts of eastern Ukraine. Such a deal would force Ukraine to retreat from positions it considers strategically important while giving Russia a couple of months to regroup before attacking again, on the pretext that Ukraine didn't abide by Russian demands. Another possibility that has been floated is a ban on waging war deep inside enemy territory, or an air truce. Such an agreement would save lives -- in Kyiv and Odesa, which have come under Russian barrages day after day, but also in Russian cities, which Ukraine has grown increasingly capable of attacking with drones. For Ukraine, an air truce would come at tremendous strategic cost. It would continue to be a country at war. It would still be governed under a set of state-of-emergency provisions. Families would continue to be separated, with so many women and children having fled to Western Europe while the men remained. Worst of all, people would continue dying at the front, in the villages and towns near the front line, and in Kharkiv, Ukraine's second largest city, which is about 20 miles in. The ability to attack deep in Russian territory is Ukraine's sole negotiating advantage. These days, Russian airports are frequently forced to suspend operations because of drone attacks. The mayor of Moscow reports on the number of drones intercepted by air defense in much the same way as the mayor of Kyiv does. This is not enough to destabilize Putin's regime, but it is enough to make him nervous. If drone attacks deep inside Russian territory stopped, war -- what Russian propaganda still calls the "special military operation" -- may once again come to feel far away. The only thing that could force Putin to negotiate in earnest is the possibility of military defeat. Without that prospect, he is content to let the war continue forever. He doesn't care about losing wealth as much as Trump imagines he does, and he doesn't care about losing soldiers at all. In 2022 and again this May, the Kremlin noted that Peter the Great's war with Sweden, which began in 1700, lasted 21 years. This war, too, could go on for decades. One doesn't have to go back centuries to imagine what that would be like. The forever war is already here. A devastating new documentary, "2000 Meters to Andriivka," by Ukrainian director Mstyslav Chernov shows what it looks like. The film follows a Ukrainian brigade trying to liberate a small village. It takes them months to cover the distance in the movie's title, roughly the equivalent of 1 mile. The movie shows the gigantic horrors of war -- entire cities destroyed, swaths of farmland turned into minefields and what looks like miles of identical fresh graves -- and the smallness of it: handfuls of soldiers, armed with semiautomatic rifles, killing and being killed one person at a time, taking one prisoner at a time, fighting for one trench at a time, in terrifying minutes that stretch into hours. It is relentless like a nightmare. A platoon commander says that he dreams of the fighting, then wakes up to the fighting. "And I thought, this war is a nightmare none of us can wake up from," the narrator says. As the soldiers on-screen drag themselves through mud and ruins, the voices of Western commentators and newscasters occasionally intrude, off screen. "Western confidence is likely to dip." "If we're not getting results here, then perhaps Ukraine wants to think about another plan, even some land concessions for peace." "Western officials have expressed disappointment in a much-vaunted counteroffensive." "Russia has millions more men from whom to draw. There's no path to a military victory here, only more death." "How sustainable is this level of support when there's really no end in sight to the war?" Those are not, in the end, complicated questions. No, Ukraine cannot win this war as it is fought now. Yes, this war may drag on indefinitely, and yes, this means more and more death. But this was never and still is not the only possible outcome. The United States and NATO have always had the capacity to put an end to this war the only way it can be ended: by defeating Putin. They have consistently chosen not to do that, relying instead on old, failed policies. In this one way, Trump is more of the same. He just puts on a much bigger show.
