Justice Aravind Kumar, Prasanna V. Parale bench seeks clarification on the position of law laid down in K.A. Najeeb’s case by Justice Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose, N.V. Ramana

In Tasleem Ahmad vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026), Supreme Court's 2-judge bench passed an unreasoned order dated May 22, 2026, a 2-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question of how Article 21 is to be applied against the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA) 1967. The provision states that no person shall be granted bail for an offence under the UAPA if a court is of the opinion that “there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true”.

Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna V. Parale passed a 28-page long order dated May 22, 2026, which reads:"5. The issue, as projected before us, is not a narrow one concerning the bail prayer of the present appellants alone. It concerns the proper constitutional approach to be adopted where prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial are pressed as grounds for bail notwithstanding the statutory restraint contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. 6. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to record that K.A. Najeeb (supra) is an authoritative pronouncement of a three-Judge Bench of this Court. It preserves the constitutional force of Article 21, while at the same time recognising the legislative policy underlying special statutes such as the UAPA.  7. In K.A. Najeeb (supra), this Court held that the presence of statutory restrictions such as Section 43D(5) of the UAPA does not per se oust the power of constitutional courts to grant bail where continued detention violates Part III of the Constitution. At the same time, the three-Judge Bench expressly recognised that at the commencement of proceedings courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail; and that the rigour of such provision may melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. 8. The ratio of K.A. Najeeb (supra), therefore, is neither a charter for indefinite incarceration under the cover of Section 43D(5), nor a mathematical command that the mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, must automatically result in bail. 9. It is in this background that the decision in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [hereinafter referred to as “Gulfisha Fatima”] requires to be understood. The said judgment proceeded on the very premise that K.A. Najeeb binds all Benches of lesser strength. It expressly recognised that Article 21 occupies acentral place in the constitutional scheme; that the right to speedy trial is a facet of personal liberty; and that pre-trial incarceration cannot, by mere passage of time, assume the character of punishment. It further recognised K.A. Najeeb as a constitutional safeguard against unconscionable detention and recorded that there can be no second opinion on the proposition that statutory restrictions must yield in an appropriate case. At this juncture, we deem it necessary to reproduce certain portions of Gulfisha Fatima below:

“32. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, this Court recognised a constitutional safeguard that cannot be ignored: statutory restrictions cannot be applied so as to render the guarantee of

personal liberty illusory. It was held that where the trial is not likely to commence or conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts

retain the jurisdiction to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints. The decision thus operates as a protection against unconscionable detention and there can be no second opinion on the said principle.”

“52. The consequence of the above is that Najeeb(supra) must be understood as a principled safeguard against unconscionable detention. Prolonged incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern and carries great

weight. It is not, however, the sole determinant. The Court must consider, in totality, whether continued detention has become constitutionally unjustifiable, having regard to the role attributed, the statutory context, the limited prima facie material, the trajectory of the trial, the causes of delay, and the availability of intermediate remedies.

53. This approach does not dilute Article 21. It gives Article 21 structured content in a field where the Constitution itself recognises competing interests.Nor does it render Section 43D(5) absolute. It recognises that statutory restraint must yield in an appropriate case where detention becomes punitive by reason of unreasonable and unjustified delay. What it excludes is a mechanical override based on time alone, divorced from legal context.” 

The order reads: "10. What Gulfisha Fatima (supra) declined to accept was a mechanical or solitary application of delay. The judgment held that the inquiry into delay is contextual and must take into account the nature of allegations, the statutory field, the stage of proceedings, the realistic trajectory of trial, the causes contributing to delay, the role attributed to the accused, the prima facie material, the availability of intermediate safeguards and the risks attendant upon release. 11. The said approach, in our considered view, does not dilute Article 21. It gives Article 21 structured content in a field where the Constitution requires the Court to accommodate personal liberty, fair trial, societal security and the legislative judgment underlying a special statute. The judgment in Gulfisha Fatima understood the findings and ratio in K.A. Najeeb as a principled safeguard against unconscionable detention, and not as a mathematical formula of universal application. 12. In Gulfisha Fatima, bail was granted to five of the seven appellants before the Court. Bail was declined to two appellants not because Article 21 was treated as subordinate to Section 43D(5), but because, upon an accused-specific evaluation, the Court found that their role, the prima facie material attributed to them, and the attendant concerns of trial integrity did not, at that stage, justify overriding the statutory embargo. Even in respect of those two appellants, liberty was reserved to renew the prayer for bail upon completion of examination of protected witnesses or upon expiry of one year, whichever was earlier. That course itself shows that the judgment treated Article 21 as a continuing constitutional check and not as a spent or excluded consideration. 13. One circumstance in the present batch deserves particular notice. The present appellants themselves have placed reliance upon Gulfisha Fatima in support of their prayer for bail. This circumstance is not without significance. If Gulfisha Fatima had proceeded on the basis that Section 43D(5) eclipses Article 21, or that prolonged incarceration has no constitutional bearing in UAPA prosecutions, it could hardly have been invoked by accused persons seeking enlargement on bail. The very reliance placed upon it demonstrates that the said decision cannot be placed in a rigid or one-sided frame. 14. In a later decision in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu  another coordinate Bench has expressed serious reservations on certain aspects of Gulfisha Fatima, including the manner in which K.A. Najeeb was applied. The later decision has observed, inter alia, that Gulfisha Fatima adopts a narrower reading of K.A. Najeeb and that such reasoning amounts to a hollowing out of the constitutional force of the three-Judge Bench decision. 15. We do not propose to enter into any adjudication on the correctness of observations made by a coordinate Bench. Judgments of this Court are not to be answered by counter-observations from another Bench of equal strength. The discipline of precedent demands a higher institutional method. 16. However, where a coordinate Bench entertains reservations about the reasoning of an earlier coordinate Bench, particularly on the application of a binding three- Judge Bench decision, the proper course is well settled. The matter must ordinarily be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench. A coordinate Bench cannot, by strong observations, effectively unsettle the ratio of an earlier coordinate Bench while continuing to sit in equal strength. 17. We deem it necessary to observe that disagreement between coordinate Benches, by itself, is neither unusual nor undesirable. The law has often grown through reasoned difference. What the discipline of precedent does not countenance, however, is a course by which an earlier coordinate Bench is subjected to reservations of a fundamental character, particularly on the alleged misapplication of a larger Bench decision, without the matter being placed before a Bench competent in strength to resolve the perceived conflict. A coordinate Bench may distinguish an earlier decision, may explain its own understanding of the law, and may, in an appropriate case, express doubt. But where the doubt goes to the root of the legal principle applied, the matter cannot be left at the

stage of criticism. A doubt expressed in emphatic terms is still a doubt; it is not a declaration of law. Unless resolved by a Bench of appropriate strength, it only introduces uncertainty in the administration of justice. 18. The obligation of judicial discipline is, therefore, not discharged by merely stating it. It lies in adopting the course which the institution requires. A Bench of equal strength cannot achieve, by language of reservation, what it cannot achieve by declaration of law. If the earlier view is thought to be inconsistent with a larger Bench decision,the proper course is reference. That course protects not merely the judgment doubted, but the authority of this Court itself. In matters touching personal liberty, national security, statutory restrictions on bail and prolonged incarceration, uncertainty in the law is itself an institutional cost. We, therefore, consider it our duty not to add another competing formulation to the field, but to place the perceived conflict before a Bench of appropriate strength so that the law may speak with the clarity and authority expected of this Court. 19. It is possible for Benches of this Court to differ in emphasis. It is equally possible that two decisions may proceed on the same constitutional foundation but apply it differently to distinct factual settings. But where the difference is projected as one concerning the binding force of a three-Judge Bench decision, and where such difference is likely to affect pending trials under special statutes across the country, the matter cannot be left to uncertain application by courts. 20. We are also conscious that an unqualified reading of the proposition that lapse of time by itself must compel bail in every case under the UAPA may have serious consequences. Such an approach may leave little room for courts to examine the nature of allegations, centrality of role, protected witnesses, risk of intimidation, possibility of reactivation of networks, nature of delay and whether such delay is attributable to the accused himself/herself, public order concerns and national security implications.On the other hand, an equally unqualified insistence on Section 43D(5) without regard to prolonged incarceration would imperil Article 21. The Constitution does not command either extreme. It is this precise issue that may warrant attention of the appropriate bench dealing with the issues.  21. The question, therefore, is not whether Article 21 survives Section 43D(5). It undoubtedly does. The true question is how Article 21 is to be applied in a statutory field where Parliament has consciously imposed restrictions on bail in respect of offences alleged to affect the security of the State and the stability of civic life.  22. We clarify that nothing in this order is intended to whittle down, dilute, read narrowly, or detract from the authority of K.A. Najeeb. On the contrary, the present reference is necessitated because K.A. Najeeb deserves application with the clarity, consistency and institutional fidelity which a binding three-Judge Bench decision commands. If a coordinate Bench has expressed reservations on the manner in which another coordinate Bench has applied K.A. Najeeb, the proper answer is not further reservation. The proper answer is authoritative resolution. 23. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the issue requires consideration by Bench to be constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. This is necessary not merely for the present batch of matters, but to settle the correct approach to bail under special statutes where Article 21, prolonged incarceration and statutoryrestrictions intersect.24. Having regard to the importance of the issue, we are of the view that the questions requiring consideration need not be confined to the correctness of any one decision. The controversy raises a broader question concerning the manner in which constitutional courts are to approach bail where prolonged incarceration is asserted in prosecutions governed by special statutes imposing restrictive bail conditions. In this background it would be imperative or in other words necessary for the appropriate bench that may be constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to clarify or expound the position of law laid down in K.A. Najeeb’s case, particularly in the backdrop of the rigour of 43D (5) which imposes restriction consciously and has received the assent of the Parliament, which obviously was brought in keeping in mind the valuable right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 25. Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench to resolve the aforesaid issues. 26. We clarify that the present reference shall not be understood as an expression of final opinion on the merits of the prosecution case or on the guilt or innocence of the appellants. Nor shall the present order be read as affirming or disapproving any factual finding recorded in any earlier bail order. The reference is confined to the legal questions noticed above." 

The order reads: "27. Having said so, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the present appellants have undergone substantial incarceration; that the trial is not likely to conclude immediately; that the appellants themselves have invoked the principle of calibrated constitutional discretion

recognised in Gulfisha Fatima; and that the determination of the issues may consume further time. The appellants cannot be made to suffer continued incarceration merely because an important question of law has arisen for authoritative settlement. Without expressing any opinion on merits, and subject to stringent safeguards, we are inclined to grant interim bail to the appellants pending further orders."

It added:"List the matters after orders are passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side."

 

In Union of India vs. K A Najeeb (2021), a 3-Judge bench arrived at a decision by Division Bench of the Supreme Court which s binding on the 2-judge benches of the Supreme Court, High Courts, all the courts and law enforcement agencies in the country. On the issue of bail in UAPA cases, the law is settled by a binding precedent created by the 3-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose and N.V. Ramana. It was authored by Justice Surya Kant. In his judgement dated February 1, 202, he concluded: "keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant’s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent’s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. 20. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the Respondent on bail is that Section 43­D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS. Unlike the NDPS where the competent Court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such pre­condition under the UAPA. Instead, Section 43­D (5) of UAPA merely provides another possible ground for the competent Court to refuse bail, in addition to the well­settled considerations like gravity of the offence, possibility of tampering with evidence, influencing the witnesses or chance of the accused evading the trial by absconsion etc.... 

21. In light of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order."

In Syed Iftikhar Andrabi vs. National Investigation Agency, Jammu (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, "We have further discussed the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima. We harbor serious reservations on various aspects of that judgment, including its directive foreclosing the right of the appellants to seek bail for a period of one year. The judgment in Gulfisha Fatima would have us believe that Najeeb is merely a narrow and exceptional departure from Section 43-D(5), justified only in extreme factual situations...It is precisely this hollowing out of the import of the observations in Najeeb that concerns us. No reading of Najeeb suggests that the mere passage of time, divorced from all surrounding circumstances, mechanically entitles an accused to release. The real concern addressed in Najeeb lay elsewhere." It ruled on bail applications in a  Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act (UAPA) case.  The judgement dated May 18, 2026 was authored by Justices Ujjal Bhuyan with invaluable inputs of Justice B.V. Nagarathna, wherein, it clarified and reiterated the legal position following K.A. Najeeb case. 

It stated that it had reservations about a recent decision dated January 5, 2026 in Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2026) by Supreme Court's 2-Judge Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria. It was authored by Justice Kumar. It  denied bail in a similar UAPA case. Justice Kumar concluded:"430. This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material, taken at face value as required at this stage, discloses a prima facie attribution of a central and formative role by the appellants in appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025 i.e., Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the alleged conspiracy. The material suggests involvement at the level of planning, mobilisation, and strategic direction, extending beyond episodic or localised acts. The statutory threshold under Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, therefore stands attracted qua these appellants. 431. While the period of incarceration undergone by these appellants is substantial and has been duly considered, the Court is not persuaded that, on the present record, continued detention has crossed the threshold of constitutional impermissibility so as to override the statutory embargo. The complexity of the prosecution, the nature of evidence relied upon, and the stage of the proceedings do not justify their enlargement on bail at this juncture as noticed in detail in the discussion made hereinabove. Hence, the appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14165 of 2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 14030 of 2025 stands rejected. 432. We reiterate that courts are under a constitutional obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings, particularly those involving prolonged pre-trial incarceration, should progress with utmost expedition and the accused are not left to languish in jail. At the same time, the Court is mindful that pre-trial detention, even when justified by statute, cannot be permitted to continue without regard to the progress of the trial. The restraint on liberty contemplated by law must proceed alongside a meaningful advancement of the prosecution. In the present case, having regard to the reliance placed upon protected witnesses, this Court considers it appropriate to provide a defined point for consideration of their prayer for grant of bail. We are of the opinion that on the completion of the examination of the protected witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, or upon the expiry of a period of one year from the date of this order, whichever is earlier, these two appellants would be at liberty to renew their prayer for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court. In the event of such prayer being made it shall be considered on its own merits, having regard to the stage then reached in the proceedings before the Trial Court, and without being influenced by the impugned orders or the present order. This course gives effect to the statutory discipline embodied in Section 43D(5) of UAPA while ensuring that the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 operates as a continuing check against continued incarceration without there being any substantial progress of the trial."

The judgement reads:"433. The appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 13988 of 2025 (Gulfisha Fatima), SLP (Crl.) No. 14132 of 2025 (Meeran Haider), SLP (Crl.) No. 14859 of 2025 (Shifa-ur-Rehman), SLP (Crl.) No. 15335 of 2025 (Mohd. Saleem Khan), and SLP (Crl.) No. 17055 of 2025 (Shadab Ahmed) are allowed as the Court is of the view that, having regard to the role attributed, the nature of the material relied upon, and the present stage of the proceedings, continued incarceration is not shown to be indispensable to the conduct of a fair trial, provided strict safeguards are imposed. The grant of bail in their favour does not reflect any dilution of the seriousness of the allegations, nor does it amount to a finding on guilt. It represents a calibrated exercise of constitutional discretion, structured to preserve both liberty of the individual and security of the nation....v. Each of the appellants, namely Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed, shall personally appear twice a week, that is on Monday and  Thursday between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon, before the Station House Officer, Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi – 110001 and mark their attendance....vi. The abovenamed appellants shall not directly or indirectly contact, influence, intimidate or attempt to contact any witness or any person connected with the proceedings, nor shall they associate with or participate in the activities of any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the present FIR/ final report. vii. The appellants shall not make or publish or disseminate any information, statement, article or post whether in print, electronic or social media concerning the present case or its participants till conclusion of the trial. viii. The appellants shall not participate in any programme or address or attend any gathering, rally or meeting, whether physically or virtually till conclusion of the trial. ix. The appellants shall not circulate any post either in electronic form or physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc in any form whatsoever. x. The appellants shall fully cooperate with the trial and shall appear on every date of hearing unless exempted for reasons to be recorded by the Trial Court to its satisfaction and they shall not exhibit any conduct that has the effect of delaying the proceedings. xi. The appellants shall maintain peace and good behaviour throughout and in the event of any offence committed during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution would be at liberty to seek for revocation of the bail granted by filing such application before the Trial Court and in the event of such application being filed the Trial Court shall consider it on its own merits. 435. In case of breach of any of the afore-stated conditions imposed or in the event of appellants having misused the liberty granted, it shall be open to the Trial Court to cancel the bail which would be necessarily after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants.... 436. Before we conclude, it bears reiteration that a principle lies at the heart of constitutional adjudication in matters of this nature. The Constitution guarantees personal liberty, but it does not conceive liberty as an isolated or absolute entitlement, detached from the security of the society in which it operates. The sovereignty, integrity, and security of the nation, as well as the preservation of public order, are not abstract concerns rather they are constitutional values which Parliament is entitled to protect through law. Where a special statutory framework has been enacted to address offences perceived to strike at these foundations, courts are duty-bound to give effect to that framework, subject always to constitutional discipline. 437. In the application of such law, the Court does not proceed on identity, ideology, belief, or association. It proceeds on role, material, and the statutory threshold governing the exercise of jurisdiction. Criminal law does not mandate identical outcomes merely because allegations arise from the same transaction. Those alleged to have conceived, directed, or steered unlawful activity or terrorist activity stand on a different legal footing from those whose alleged involvement is confined to facilitation or participation at a different level. To disregard such distinctions would itself result in arbitrariness. 438. The present decision reflects this constitutional method. It neither endorses the prosecution case nor prejudges the guilt of any accused. It applies the law as it stands, recognising that individual liberty must be protected, but that it must also withstand the legitimate demands of national security and collective safety. This balance is not a matter of preference rather it is a matter of constitutional duty. 439. Before parting, it is necessary to reiterate the limited nature of the present determination. The Court has not examined the merits of the prosecution case beyond the confines mandated at the stage of consideration of an application seeking bail, nor has it expressed any opinion on the ultimate culpability of any of the accused. All observations are confined to the material presently on record and to the statutory and constitutional standards governing pre-trial liberty under a special enactment."

The decision in Gulfisha Fatima case appears to be per incuriam because it did not follow the doctrine of precedent and judicial discipline. The os whether the situation in Gulfisha Fatima was “ordinary” or not, and whether the circumstances’ ‘extraordinariness’ was significant enough to outweigh long incarceration and trial delays when deciding to grant bail. The decision in Gulfisha also referred to the 3-judge decision but it inferred that it was not applicable because it was not dealing with an ordinary situation. 

Supreme Court issues notice to Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food Safety Standards Authority of India, CAG

In Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani vs. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court’s Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has passed an order dated May 27 2026, whereby, it issued notice to Union of India and the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India and Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, returnable within four weeks. The case was filed on May 13 registered on May 21 and verfied on May 25, 2026. 

The petition alleges that the existing penal provisions under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 is ineffective in deterring large food business operators from violating food safety standards, because the prescribed monetary fines are not proportionate to the commercial turnover of such entities. The petition seeks judicial directions for a revised enforcement architecture that incorporates turnover‑based penalties and other systemic improvements.

Notably, Section 97 of the Act has repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the Meat Food Products Order, 1973, the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947, the Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998, the Solvent Extracted Oil, De oiled Meal, and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967, the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 and any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to food.

The key issue raised by the writ petition is about the inadequacy of the penal provisions in Chapter IX of the 2006 Act, specifically Sections 49, 51 and 52. 

The petitioner has submitted that the statutory ceiling of Rs 5 lakh for sub‑standard food (Section 51) and Rs 3 lakh for misbranding (Section 52) is grossly insufficient to serve as a deterrent for large corporations whose annual turnovers may run into billions of rupees. It has been submitted that the fixed caps creates a “cost of doing business” rather than a punitive measure, thereby undermining the deterrent purpose envisioned by the legislature. It relies on the Court’s  decision in Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India 2013 (16) SCC 279, wherein, it was held that consumption of hazardous food directly threatens Article 21 of the Constitution of India and directed the establishment of an effective food‑safety surveillance system. 

On October 22, 2013, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Dpak Misra had concluded:"23. Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including right to life and human dignity encompasses, within its ambit availability of articles of food, without insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic residues, solvent residues, etc. But the fact remains, many of the food articles like rice, vegetables, meat, fish, milk, fruits available in the market contain insecticides or pesticides residues, beyond the tolerable limits, causing serious health hazards. We notice, fruit based soft drinks available in various fruit stalls, contain such pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but no attention is made to examine its contents. Children and infants are uniquely susceptible to the effects of pesticides because of their physiological immaturity and greater exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise. 24. We, therefore, direct the Food and Safety Standards Authority of India, to gear up their resources with their counterparts in all the States and Union Territories and conduct periodical inspections and monitoring of major fruits and vegetable markets, so as to ascertain whether they conform to such standards set by the Act and the Rules." The judgement was authored by Justice Radhakrishnan. 

The current petition points out systemic failures within the FSSAI. It cites CAG's performance audit report of 2017 which reported a 47 percent recovery rate for imposed penalties and chronic pendency of adjudication proceedings. It refers to data presented to the Rajya Sabha on March 13, 2026, indicating that only 2,997 Food Safety Officers were in post against a sanctioned strength of 4,208. It draws attention towards paucity of laboratory capacity. Many state‑level labs lack the infrastructure to test for pesticides, heavy metals, and microbiological contaminants, leading to incomplete testing of food samples.

It seeks introduction of turnover‑linked penalties that scale with the financial capacity of the offending entity; enhancement of the regulatory monitoring framework; augmentation of laboratory infrastructure; recruitment of additional Food Safety Officers; and greater public disclosure of violations. 

The petition also seeks direction from the Court for framing of rules that provide a rational connection between the severity of the violation, the economic gain and the penalty imposed.

31-member Joint Parliamentary Committee examining Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan Bill

On June 5, 2026, Joint Parliamentary Committee on Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan Bill, 2025 visited University of Kashmir and reviewed the functioning of the university. 

Critics of the Bill hold that it is an exercise in constitutional overreach disregarding the fact that Entry 66 of Union List of the Constitution of India which provides limited and specific legislative power to Parliament only for coordination and determination of standards in higher education institutions. Education is a subject under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. 

The bill concentrates regulatory, accreditation, and standard-setting functions under bodies appointed directly by the Union government, sparking concerns over executive overreach and political interference.

Several state governments have pointed out that it diminishes the authority of states over their own universities.

It promotes a market-driven, "hyper-globalized" approach focused on global rankings. It fails to address social justice, public-funded education, and domestic innovation.

The Bill covers Union and State-funded universities as well as private universities. It takes away the autonomy of the governing bodies of Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) and Inter-University Centres (IUCs). 

Union Minister for Education had introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025 in Lok Sabha on December 15, 2025. The purpose of the Bill is to empower Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) of India.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020calls for a fundamental transformation of the higher education regulatory system. Dr. K. Kasturirangan was the Chairperson, NEP Drafting Committee, former Chairperson, ISRO.

On December 12, 2025, the Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister had approved the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill for it's introduction in the Parliament.

The Bill was introduced under the provisions of Entry 66 of the Union List in the seventh schedule of the Constitution of India which provides for “Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions”.

It provides for the establishment of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan as an supreme body, along with three Councils: the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Viniyaman Parishad (Regulatory Council), the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Gunvatta Parishad (Accreditation Council), and the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Manak Parishad (Standards Council). 

The Bill also provides for repealing the University Grants Commission Act (UGC), 1956, the All India Council for Technical Education Act (AICTE), 1987 and the National Council for Teacher Education Act (NCTE), 1993. All higher educational institutions under the purview of the Ministry of Education, UGC, AICTE, and NCTE will be under the purview of the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan for determination of standards.  The Council of Architecture (CoA) shall function as a Professional Standard Setting Body (PSSB) as envisioned in the NEP, 2020. The Bill ensures upholding the current level of autonomy accorded to the Institutions of National Importance.

The Adhishthan will provide strategic direction for the holistic growth of higher education and ensuring coordination among the Councils. The Standards Council will be responsible for synchronization and specifying minimum academic standards in HEIs; the Regulatory Council will ensure coordination and maintenance of these standards; and the Accreditation Council will function as an independent accrediting authority overseeing a robust and credible accreditation ecosystem.

The Regulatory Council’s public portal, which mandates disclosure of governance, financial, academic, and institutional performance data by HEIs, will also serve as the foundational basis for accreditation. This integrated approach will ensure transparency, accountability, and efficiency, while reinforcing the Government’s commitment to simplification of systems for the stakeholders in Higher Education.

The membership of the Adhishthan and various Councils primarily comprises eminent academicians, domain experts, and representatives from States/UTs, State HEIs, and Institutions of National Importance, ensuring balanced representation and informed decision-making.

The entire regulatory framework will operate through technology-driven, faceless, Single Window Interactive Systems, based on principles of public self-disclosure and trust-based regulation.

The Regulatory Council will maintain a comprehensive public digital portal, where HEIs will be required to disclose information relating to financial probity, governance practices, finances, audits, procedures, infrastructure, faculty and staff, academic programmes, and educational outcomes. 

The data submitted on this public portal will also serve as the primary basis for accreditation, thereby ensuring transparency, accountability, and consistency across the higher education ecosystem. 

Delhi High Court declines interim relief for restoration of suspended social media account of Cockroach Janta Party on X, case to be heard on July 6

In Save India Foundation (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. (2026), Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of Delhi High Court declined to grant immediate interim relief for the restoration of the suspended social media account of the satirical political outfit Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) on the platform X. Justice Kaurav issued notice to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and X Corp, observing that the challenges raised concerning freedom of speech on digital platforms. The case is listed for further arguments on July 6, 2026. 

The administrative blocking was issued under Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read alongside the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. 

Justice Kaurav observed: "The issues presented before this court carry structural complexities that affect public order and state scrutiny. Preliminary evaluations of the administrative background reveal that the overarching digital operations in question cannot be summarily classified as benign humor. Because the state records indicate a potential threat to institutional equilibrium, no mandatory ad-interim directions can be safely structured without analyzing the counter-affidavits of the respondents." 

 The High Court directed the statutory Review Committee—mandated under Rule 14 of the 2009 IT Blocking Rules—to re-examine the validity of MeitY's blocking order. 

The Union of India was granted four weeks to file its detailed counter-affidavit providing the confidential intelligence inputs that necessitated the digital restriction. 

Rajesh Exports Limited, the story so far

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued a 109-page interim order dated June 3, 2026 based on its investigation and forensic review which uncovered prima facie evidence suggesting that about 97-99% of the company's revenue may have been inflated. SEBI's interim order in the matter of Rajesh Exports Limited is available at https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/jun-2026/interim-order-in-the-matter-of-rajesh-exports-limited_101820.html

At page no. 94, the interim order reads:*It becomes all the more important for the regulator to step in at the right time and pass  interim  directions  because  if  the  same  is  not done,  huge  losses  may  be faced by gullible investors.Having regard to the prima facie findings recorded in this order, I am of the considered view that urgent ex parte interim directions are necessary for the following reasons:I.The  violations prima  facie established  in  this  matter  are  not  isolated  or inadvertent but constitute a systematic and multi-year scheme of financial misrepresentation.   The   inflated   consolidated   revenues,   the   fictitious standalone transactions, incorrect consolidation, the misutilization of funds through  personal  accounts,  and  the  opaque  receivable  adjustments  are interlinked elements of a broader pattern of conduct designed to present a false financial picture to the market. "

SEBI, the market regulator has restrained promoter Mehta from buying, selling or dealing in securities of Rajesh Exports until further orders. It has also directed the firm to cooperate fully with investigators and make true and fair disclosures in its financial statements and related-party transactions. The regulator has instructed both Rajesh Exports and Mehta to fully cooperate with investigators and submit all requested documents and explanations within 30 days.

Notably, Rajesh Exports' shares saw a sharp 5% decline following the announcement. The shares of Life Insurance Corporation of India have fallen over 1%. LIC holds a 10.80% stake in the company. In it, Sebi whole-time member Kamlesh Chandra Varshney noted "approximately 97% to 99% of the revenues of the company are inflated, are egregious and unheard of."

This 97%-99% of Rajesh Exports' consolidated revenue came from overseas subsidiaries, particularly Switzerland-based Valcambi ​SA, a firm which disclosed negligible ​standalone revenues in its audited financial statements. Rajesh Exports has routinely avoided disclosure of its subsidiaries' financials in the public domain.

It is also noteworthy that Rajesh Exports Ltd also recorded Rs 114.87 billion in sales and Rs 114.88 billion in purchases with Affluence Shares and Stocks Private Limited. This company has denied participating in any such sales.

SEBI, the regulatory body for securities and commodity market in India is under the administrative domain of Ministry of Finance. It was established on April 12, 1988 as an executive body. It was given statutory powers on January 30, 1992 through the SEBI Act, 1992. The Act has been amended on 14 occasions. Out of these eight amendments have been carried out during 2014-2021. 

SEBI Act was enacted "to provide for the establishment of a Board to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."

The term “securities” has the meaning assigned to it in section 2 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. "Securities" include (i) shares, scrips, stocks, bonds, debentures, debenture stock or other mark securities of a like nature in or of any incorporated company or other corporate;(ia) derivative;(ib) units or any other instrument issued by any collective investment sche the investors in such schemes;(ic) security receipt as defined in clause (zg) of section 2 of the Securitisation Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interes 2002;(id) units or any other such instrument issued to the investors unde mutual fund scheme;(ii) Government securities;(iia) such other instruments as may be declared by the Central Government securities; and(iii) rights or interest in securities".

The issue regarding Rajesh Exports Ltd. came to light from a shareholder's  complaint filed in March 2024, pointing out concerns over substantial trade receivables reflected in the company's accounts. In response, SEBI launched a probe into the complaint. It appointed BDO India Services as the forensic auditor. 

The SEBI is constituted under section 3 of the Act. It was originally constituted under the Resolution of the Government of India in the Department of Economic Affairs dated the April 12, 1988.

By an amendment in the SEBI Act which came into effect from January 25, 1995. inserted bar on jurisdiction of courts under Section 20A. It reads: "No order passed by the Board or the adjudicating officer under this Act shall be appealable except as provided in section 15T or section 20] and no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Board or the adjudicating officer] is empowered by, or under, this Act to pass any order and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any order passed by the Board or the adjudicating officer by, or under this Act. 

Section 22 of the Act reads: "All members, officers and other employees of the Board shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act, to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code."

SEBI also directed the company to ensure accurate disclosures relating to financial statements, related-party transactions and other requirements under the Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements (LODR) regulations. 

It took more than two years for the SEBI to issue it's interim order. So far no one knows as to why  LIC invested in Rajesh Exports Ltd. SEBI has noted that there has been a significant misrepresentation of revenues spanning a five-year period from 2020-21 to 2024-25 that amounts ro a staggering Rs 15 lakh crore. It seems SEBI is yet to seek assistance from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Ministry of Finance, which enforces the Foreign Exchange Management Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to investigate further  The ED and CBDT can initiate investigations if SEBI files a case under the PMLA, 2002.

Supreme Court directs Bihar, Jharkhand Govt.s to clear dues of defunct Corporation employees after 25 year delay, post self-immolation of Chandan Bhattacharya

In Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2026 INSC 607), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered a 29-page long judgement dated May 29, 2026, wherein, it concluded:  “The material placed before this Court revealed that the prolonged non-payment of lawful dues resulted in grave humanitarian consequences affecting a large section of the workforce and their dependants. The proceedings disclosed allegations of severe deprivation, destitution and reported instances of suicides and starvation deaths amongst the affected employees and their family members owing to prolonged denial of salaries and retiral benefits. The dispute, therefore, ceased to remain a mere matter of financial adjustment between two successor States and assumed the character of a significant human rights and constitutional concern directly implicating the right to livelihood and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

The Court had dealt with a similar issue in Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1, wherein, it directed Rs 125 crores as interim relief but it proved insufficient to clear arrears beyond February 1997. Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh filed the writ petition in 2022. By Court's order dated October 9, 2023, it directed Bihar, Jharkhand and union governments arrive at a joint solution. As no solution was found. The Court constituted a Committee under Justice Dinesh Maheshwari (Retd.). The Committee conducted 25 meetings and submitted its final report on April 30, 2026. 

The Court had given the points of reference for consideration and enquiry by the Committee:-
I. Fixation of the proportional liabilities of both the States i.e., State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, towards the salaries and other emoluments including retiral benefits of the employees of the erstwhile corporations, whether dissolved or existing. 
II. Identification of the employees/family members of the deceased employees including a finding on the service tenure(s) of the employee(s) concerned and the duration for which they have been deprived of their lawful dues.
III. The entitlement of the erstwhile employees to receive salary and/or retiral benefits as per the extant statutes or rules.
IV. Any other matter relevant to the controversy. 

The Court received two interim reports dated August 6, 2025 and November 25, 2025 submitted by the Committee. 

The Court expressed its agreement with the findings, recommendations and suggestions made by the Committee, together with the consequential directions required to be issued for effective implementation. It enumerated them as under:-
i. The apportionment and fixation of the inter se liability of the respective States towards payment of salaries, retiral dues and other consequential emoluments payable to the employees of the erstwhile corporations shall stand resolved in terms of the allocation and computation determined by the Committee in paragraph No. 8.2 of the Final Report, namely, on the basis of the Affidavit dated 22nd26 December, 2023 furnished on behalf of the Union of India, which shall govern the respective liabilities of both the States. The concerned States shall remain bound to discharge their respective liabilities accordingly, if already not discharged.
ii. The determination of the applicable Pay Revision Commission shall stand confined to the Pay Revision Commission(s) duly adopted by the concerned Corporations prior to their becoming defunct, and consequently, no entitlement shall accrue in favour of the employees towards benefits arising from any subsequent Pay Revision Commissions which were never formally adopted by the competent authorities of the respective Corporations. 
iii. The determination, computation and disbursal of dues payable towards Employees’ Provident Fund contributions and allied statutory benefits shall be undertaken in accordance with the structured mechanism recommended by the Committee and noted hereinabove, and the concerned authorities shall ensure expeditious and effective disbursal of the admissible amounts to the eligible employees and/or their legal heirs in accordance therewith.

The judgement reads: "38. Notwithstanding the substantial resolution of the disputes in terms of the findings and recommendations accepted hereinabove, following residual issues still survive which, in our considered view, require independent judicial consideration and adjudication by this Court having regard to the nature of the claims involved and the legal consequences flowing therefrom:-
i. The identification and verification of the remaining employees/workmen and/or the legal heirs of deceased employees/workmen in cases where claims are yet to attain finality;
ii. The entitlement of the daily-wage workmen, as also the legal heirs of deceased employees/workmen, to lump-sum compensation and/or any other form of monetary, rehabilitative or welfare support including payment of due wages and other consequential admissible benefits; and iii. The entitlement to, and determination of, appropriate interest on delayed payment of salaries/wages, retiral dues, provident fund amounts and other consequential emoluments." 

The court directed that "an additional honorarium of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Thirty-Five Lakhs only) shall be paid to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Judge (Retd.), Supreme Court of India." The amount shall be borne equally by the States of Bihar and Jharkhand and disbursed within a specified period.

Earlier, the Court had passed judgement dated May 9, 2003, judgement dated January 13, 2005 and  judgement dated July 8, 2008.  In its 2003 judgement in Kapila Hingorani case, it was recorded:"A newspaper report as regard non-payment of salary for a long time resulting in starvation highlighted the case of one Chandan Bhattacharya, son of an employee of the Bihar State Agro-Industries Development Corporation who tried to immolate himself. The incident was widely reported, inter alia, in ’The Hindustan Times’, Delhi Edition, on 19.9.2002 under the caption "Empty coffers drive staff to self-immolation bids". The said Chandan Bhattacharya later on succumbed to the burn injuries suffered by him. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner, a public spirited citizen and a Supreme Court lawyer, alleged that apart from plight of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the statutory authorities, even the teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided and Unaided Schools, Madrassas and Colleges have been facing a similar fate. We, however, as at present advised do not intend to deal with the same. According to the petitioner, from a newspaper report it would appear that about 250 employees died due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis resulting from non-payment of remunerations to them for a long time. The report further goes on to say that the leader of the opposition in the Bihar Assembly had alleged that over 1000 employees died "due to lack of salary for a period ranging from four months to 94 months". In its counter affidavit, the State of Bihar does not deny about the factual statement made in the said writ petition...."

Subsequently, a 3-Judge Bench of the Court had passed an order dated August 9, 2010, wherein, it had concluded:"The issues involved in these cases basically are legal issues. They will have to be gone into by the concerned High Courts. This Court has so far monitored the matter to its best possible ability. In the circumstances, we request the High Court to examine these matters in the PIL and pass appropriate orders in these PILs as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court. The attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court may be drawn to this Order. We request the High Court to consider the orders passed by this Court giving appropriate directions from time to time in these cases. We also direct the High Court to consider making interim payments to the affected persons including medical treatment. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no orders are required to be passed on the interlocutory applications." It is not clear as to what was done by the High Court in this regard.  

RBI issues "Clarification on gold holdings" says, "the physical stock of gold remains unchanged at 880.52 tonnes as on date", but 197.6 tonnes are outside India

On June 3, 2026, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a "Clarification on gold holdings" saying it "has come across reports in certain sections of the media about RBI’s sale of gold. The RBI emphasizes that these reports are not correct.  In this context, it is clarified that the physical stock of gold is disclosed by RBI in its Monthly Bulletin. The latest edition is available on the RBI website at: 
https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewBulletin.aspx?Id=24213 , and the physical stock of gold remains unchanged at 880.52 tonnes as on date. Members of public are, therefore, advised to rely on official information published by RBI from time to time in such matters." RBI's press release: 2026-2027/376 was signed by Brij Raj, Chief General Manager. 

The Fact Check  Unit of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)'s Press Information Bureau (PIB) issued a statement dated June 3, 2026 in this regard. It reads:"A news report published by @Bloomberg  states that RBI may have sold gold amounting to approximately USD 12 billion. This claim is FAKE. According to @RBI, the share of gold in India's foreign exchange reserves rose from 13.92% at end-September 2025 to 16.70% on March 31, 2026, and further to 16.85% as of May 22, 2026. The physical stock of gold is also disclosed by RBI in its Monthly Bulletin. The latest edition is available on the RBI website at: https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_ViewBulletin.aspx?Id=24213, the status of which remains unchanged as on date." PIB has been taking proactive measures to combat fake news related to the Government of India. In November 2019, PIB established a Fact Check Unit (FCU) with the purpose of tackling the issue of fake news pertaining to the Government of India, its various ministries, Departments, Public Sector Undertakings, and other Central Government organizations. The unit verifies claims about government policies, regulations, announcements and measures. Through an established rigorous fact-checking procedure, the PIB Fact Check Unit helps in dispelling myths, rumours and false claims, and provides accurate and reliable information to the public. The PIB Fact Check Unit is headed by a senior DG/ADG-level officer of the Indian Information Service (IIS). After the DG/ADG, a Director is the operational head managing the daily operations of the Fact Check Unit. The Director is assisted by a Deputy Director. The Unit reports to the Principal Director General, PIB, who functions as the Principal Spokesperson of the Government of India. 

Responding to the RBI's press release, Bloomberg has published a news report dated June 3, 2026  which reads: "India’s central bank said a report that it’s selling gold is “not correct,” pointing to data showing its physical stock of gold has remained unchanged." 

Sandeep Manudhane, an economist pointed out that the data on RBI's website reveals that gold value reduced from 11.45 trillion rupees to 10.98 trillion rupees (from May 15 to May 22, 2026), a drop of 4%. Same in dollar terms also: ~4% drop. If total gold stock is same, this is possible only if prices reduced in that ratio. In that week, prices were nearly steady (15-22 May 2026). So if RBI did sell, it could mean roughly 20-30 T of gold. (variation depending on 22-carat or 24-carat). For 15th-22nd May week, both the INR-Dollar exchange rate and Gold prices remained almost steady. They didn't bring about the huge drop in value (in crores) as seen. The INR depreciated by only about 0.035%, while IBJA 999 gold moved by only about 0.12%. Therefore, neither currency movement nor gold-price movement can explain the much larger ₹46,156 crore decline (~ 4%) in value. This discrepancy is not due to SGBs either. SGBs are Government of India securities, issued by RBI on behalf of GoI, so the outstanding redemption/interest obligation belongs to GoI, not RBI. In fact RBI’s own FAQ is explicit that SGBs are government securities and RBI issues them on behalf of the Government of India. For the week 15th May to 22nd May 2026, neither did Gold Prices fluctuate much, nor did the INR-$ exchange rate. RBI claims no change in tonnage. RBI data shows decline in value. INR-$ exchange rate and gold prices remained flat in that 7 days period. What else can we conclude then? He referred to RBI's url at https://t.co/xWZ6Nsoy5G  

Notably, out of the 880.52 tonnes, over 680 tonnes (more than 77%) are stored within India, about 197.6 tonnes remain with the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements.

RBI is constituted under section 3 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 

Gold holdings of RBI, CAG, external auditors and mismatch in Assets register

The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) does not audit the physical gold holdings of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). RBI’s gold and forex reserves undergo statutory audits by external auditors appointed by the central bank under the RBI Act, 1934. CAG has previously audited aspects of the government's Gems and Jewellery sector and fiscal liabilities tied to gold.

The Macro-Economic Framework Statement is presented to Parliament under Section 3 of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act, 2003 and the rules made thereunder. It contains an assessment of the growth prospects of the economy along with the statement of underlying assumptions. It also contains an assessment regarding the GDP growth rate, the domestic economy and the stability of the external sector of the economy, fiscal balance of the Central Government and the external sector balance of the economy. The FRBM Act came into force on July 2, 2004 with the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Rules, 2004. 

The FRBM Act generally bars the Union Government from borrowing from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) except in special situations to meet temporary excess of cash disbursement over cash receipt, subscription of primary issues and thereafter on grounds of national security, national calamity, etc., and open market operations in the secondary market.

The Rules were amended by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Rules, 2007 on January 23, 2007. It was amended again on September 5, 2012 by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Rules, 2012, on May 7, 2013 by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Rules, 2013, June 25, 2015 by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Rules, 2015 on October 31, 2015 by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Second Amendment) Rules, 2015 and on April 2, 2018 by Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (Amendment) Rules, 2018. 

Notably, Section 7A of the FRBM Act, 2003, as amended in May 2012, provided that the Union Government may entrust the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India to review periodically as required, the compliance of the provisions of this Act and such reviews shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Rule 8 was framed and notified in October 2015 to carry out the effect of Section 7A of the Act. The notified Rule provide that the CAG shall carry out an annual review of the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Central Government beginning with the Financial Year 2014-15. The review includes:
(i) analysis of achievement and compliance of targets and priorities set out in the Act and the Rules made thereunder, Medium Term Fiscal Policy Statement, Fiscal Policy Strategy Statement, Macro-economic Framework Statement and Medium Term Expenditure Framework Statement;
(ii) analysis of trends in receipts, expenditure and macro-economic parameters in relation to the Act and the Rules made thereunder;
(iii) comments related to classification of revenue, expenditure, assets or liabilities having a bearing on the achievement of targets set out in the Act and the Rules made thereunder; and
(iv) analysis of disclosures made by the Central Government to ensure greater transparency in its fiscal operations.

In compliance to Section 6 of FRBM Act, along with Budget, six disclosure statements, are placed before the Parliament.

The first Report of CAG-Report No. 27 of 2016-on compliance of the provisions of FRBM Act in respect of financial year 2014-15 was presented in Parliament in August 2016. This 82-page long report was based on the audit conducted in conformity with the auditing standards issued by the CAG of India. 

It recorded understatement about assets. As per the disclosure made by the Government, the  cumulative total of assets at the end of the year 2014-15 was Rs 9,71,354.25 crore. It pointed out inconsistency in the disclosure pertaining to asset register. The clarification for variation in the closing and opening figures in respect of assets for financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14 was not given in the Form D-4 of relevant years, which indicated absence of transparency in disclosure.

It recorded inconsistency in figures of loans to Foreign Governments. Examination of Form D-4 disclosure revealed that a sum of Rs 9,773.73 crore was shown as loans outstanding from foreign governments at the end of 2014-15. Similar information contained in the Union Government Finance Account revealed that a sum of Rs  9,210.62 crore was outstanding as loans from foreign governments at the end of 2014-15. Thus, there was overstatement of ` 563.11 crore of loans outstanding from foreign governments in Form D-4 disclosure. It also recorded inconsistency in disclosure of grants for creation of capital assets Rule 6 of the amended FRBM Rules requires laying of a statement providing the Ministry-wise breakup of grants for creation of capital assets in Form D-6. The disclosure requires providing details of budget and revised provisions for the current financial year and BE for ensuing financial year.

Its recommendations were as under:

(i) To address the issues of inconsistency in the FRBM Act/Rules, the Government may carry out suitable amendments.
(ii) The Government should follow the format of Form D-6 as prescribed under the FRBM Rules.
(iii) Budgetary provisioning as well as their accountal need to be in harmony with the codal provisions relating to classification structure of accounts to avoid misclassification of expenditure.
(iv) The Government may transfer specific purpose levies/cess collected to the funds earmarked for the purpose.
(v) A mechanism for recognizing the result of annual operations of NSSF and its impact on the Government finances may be put in place.
(vi) To facilitate correct identification and booking of expenditure as grants on creation of capital assets, the Government may consider defining the criteria for classification of expenditure as grants for creation of capital assets and its compliance by the Ministries/Departments.
(vii) The Government may exclude such grants, which does not lead to creation of assets owned by the grantee organisations, from categorising as grants for creation of capital asset.
(viii) The Government may strengthen the process of making underlying assumptions for projection of receipt and expenditure in various fiscal policy statements to insulate them from frequent changes and to seamlessly integrate the projection in the Budget.
(ix) Necessary steps may be taken to append additional statements in the Union Government Finance Accounts as suggested by the 12th Finance Commission to ensure greater transparency in the accounts.
(x) Disclosure statements prepared under the FRBM Act and Rules made thereunder should be complete in all respect and transparent.

The conclusion of the first audit report reads: "Transparency in fiscal operations of the Government is an important ingredient to achieve the accurate target of fiscal indicators envisaged under the FRBM Act. However, it was noticed that the Government did not append additional disclosure statements as recommended by Twelfth Finance Commission to bring more transparency in its operations. There was lack of adequate transparency with regard to direct tax receipt figures. Further, the disclosures made by the Government in various Forms envisaged under the FRBM Act were not complete and at variance with other publications, such as Union Government Finance Accounts and Detailed Demands for Grants." 

The audit report was signed by Mukesh Prasad Singh, Director General of Audit, Central Government and counter signed by Shashi Kant Sharma, 12th CAG of India on July 18, 2016. Sharma is an officer of the Bihar cadre.  

Ahead of the finalisation of the very first audit report, Union Government had constituted a committee in May 2016 under the chairmanship of N. K. Singh, the former Revenue and Expenditure Secretary to comprehensively review the working of the FRBM Act over last 12 years. Singh is an officer of the Bihar cadre.  

In the Nira Radia tapes, N.K. Singh can be heard stating that he got the order of the speakers in the Rajya Sabha changed to give an edge on retroactive tax rebates to Reliance Industries Limited. On July 9, 2009, N K Singh informed Nira Radia about Pranab Mukherjee's announcement of tax benefit on the gas and its indirect withdrawal, because he made it applicable only for only for NELP-VIII. NELP refers to New Exploration Licensing Policy. 

N.K Singh said, Arun Shourie "was very, very, very critical of this whole gas thing and said in the BJP parliamentary board meeting, day before yesterday. Now whatever he said in that meeting, day before yesterday, is one aspect. But what attitude BJP will take on this whole issue of the debate on the finance bill, which is beginning from Monday, in both houses of Parliament is of vital importance. Because if a large number of opposition MPs and Samajwadi will definitely join in begin to say that Pranab Mukherjee has given a bad largesse...it will benefit only one company...then Pranab Mukherjee is in the defensive and therefore the question of extending it retrospectively goes out of the window. So this whole managing that stuff in a way and also I think, you know, Arun is speaking, Shourie is speaking as a listed speaker in the Rajya Sabha for the BJP." 

N.K.Singh claimed that they have managed to make Arun Shourie the second speaker after M.Venkaiah Naidu. Pranab Mukherjee had moved the Finance Bill, 2009 to give effect to the financial proposals of the Central Government for the financial year 2009-10 on July 29, 2009. The proceedings of the day reveal that Arun Shourie was not allowed to speak by Rajnath Singh, the President of BJP although he was asked to prepare for it. The debate commenced with Ravi Shankar Prasad, followed by Venkaiah Naidu. Later, N.K. Singh claimed that his Reliance advocacy was for national ‘energy security'.

The NELP was started in 1999. Bidding of oil blocks and gas blocks under this policy from then onwards is subject to a profit-sharing contract. In that profit-sharing contract, a contractor is given the mandate to explore and find out whether there is any commercial viability with regard to oil or gas. Whatever expenses are incurred in finding out or searching oil, they are  reimbursed. That is how there is a share of the Government and of the contractor with regard to  the profit that comes which is known as the profit petroleum. That only comes when oil or gas is commercially viable.

NELP-VIII refers to the eighth round of NELP. Under NELP-VIII, 70 areas or blocks for exploration were offered, the biggest licensing round in India. Out of these 70 blocks, 24 are deepwater blocks, 28 are shallow water blocks and 18 are onland blocks. The NELP-VIII bid was launched on April 9, 2009. The bids were opened on October 12, 2009. 76 bids were received for 36 blocks. The bids were closed on October 12, 2009. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) won 17 out of the 25 oil and gas blocks it had bid for along with its partners. ONGC, in partnership with certain consortia members, had submitted bids for 25 oil and gas exploration blocks and won 17 of them. Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), which had won 45 blocks in the previous round of auctions, stayed away from making any bid in the eight round except for one coal bed methane block. None of the five top global majors, namely Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Statoil and Conoco Philips had participated with bids.

The terms of reference of the FRBM Review Committee also included looking into various aspects, factors, considerations going into determining the FRBM targets; to examine the need and feasibility of having a ‘fiscal deficit range’ as the target in place of the existing fixed numbers (percentage of GDP) as fiscal deficit target and to examine the need and feasibility of aligning the fiscal expansion or contraction with credit contraction or expansion respectively in the economy. The Committee had submitted its four volume report on January 23, 2017. It was published on April 12, 2017.

The major recommendations made by the Committee included:
• Repeal the existing FRBM Act, 2003 and the FRBM Rules, 2004.
• Enact a new Debt and Fiscal Responsibility Act, in pursuance of the new Act, enact, and adopt the Debt and Fiscal Responsibility Rules, as per drafts suggested by the Committee.
• Adopt a prudent medium-term ceiling for general government debt of 60 per cent of GDP to be achieved by no later than financial year 2022-23. Within the overall ceiling of 60 per cent, adopt a ceiling of 40 per cent for the Centre, and the balance 20 per cent for the State.
• Adopt fiscal deficit as the key operational target consistent with achieving the medium term debt ceiling.
• The path of fiscal deficit to GDP ratio of 3.0 per cent in financial year 2017-18 to financial year 2019-20, 2.8 per cent in financial year 2020-21, 2.6 per cent in financial year 2021-22 and 2.5 per cent in financial year 2022-23 be adopted.
• Revenue deficit to GDP ratio to decline steadily by 0.25 percentage points each year with the path specified as follows: 2.3 per cent in financial year 2016-17, 2.05 per cent in financial year 2017-18, 1.8 per cent in financial year 2018-19, 1.55 per cent in financial year 2019-20, 1.30 per cent in financial year 2020-21, 1.05 per cent in financial year 2021-22 and 0.8 per cent in financial year 2022-23.
• The deviation from the stipulated fiscal deficit target shall not exceed 0.5 percentage points in a year in case of invocation of Escape Clauses.
• Constitute a Fiscal Council with the Terms and Conditions as mentioned in the Report of the Committee.
 
The report of the FRBM Review Committee defined ‘general government debt’ as "total liabilities of the Central Government and the State Government excluding inter-governmental liabilities." It had provided Draft Statement of Objects & Reasons for the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Bill, 2017 and Draft Debt Management & Fiscal Responsibility Bill, 2017. It drew on the debate in the Constitutent Assembly. Besides the chairman, there were four members of the committee including Dr. Arvind Subramanian who had given a Note of Dissent against the report of the FRBM Review Committee. The other members were Rathin Roy, Director, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, Dr. Urjit Patel, Governor, RBI and Sumit Bose, former Finance Secretary. The report  acknowledged Dr. E.A.S. Sarma as the architect of the first FRBM Act. 

The 82-page long report of the CAG of India-Report No. 32 of 2017-on the compliance of the provisions of the FRBM Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Central Government for the year ended March 2016. The report contains significant results arising from the review of compliance of the provisions of the Act. The instances mentioned in this report during the test audit are for the period 2015-16. It refers to matters relating to the period prior to and subsequent to 2015-16 are included wherever found necessary. It has been referred to as the second report.

The report records the "arrears of interest receipts from State/Union Territory Governments and other loanee entities as disclosed through Union Government Finance Accounts for financial year 2015-1616 was at variance with disclosure made through Form D-2"

It is recorded that "Ministry of Information and Broadcasting while furnishing information in respect of Form D-2, did not furnish the arrears of interest amounting to 3,753.11 crore which was receivable from Prasar Bharti and clearly appearing in Section 3 of Statement No.15 of UGFA of 2015-16." UGFA refers to Union Government Finance Accounts. CAG responded:"Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stated (February 2017) that information relating to Prasar Bharti (statutory and autonomous organisation) was not included in Form D-2 furnished to the Ministry of Finance, as information was called for only in respect of State/UT Governments, Public Sector and Departmental Commercial Undertakings. In view of the reply of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the information collated and presented to the Parliament in Form D-2 by the Ministry of Finance is incomplete."

It also records the incorrect information of coal levy in arrears. It recalled that Supreme Court had cancelled (September 2014) allocation of 204 captive coal blocks and imposed additional levy @ Rs 295 per tonne on coal extracted. In the first report of CAG on FRBM (No.27 of 2016), a para on outstanding amount of coal levy amounting to Rs 3,368 crore (as on 31 March 2015) and its non-inclusion in the disclosure statement (Form D-2) pertaining to arrears of non-tax revenue was made. It was noticed that for the reporting year 2015-16, the outstanding amount of coal levy furnished to the Ministry of Finance in Form D-2 by the Ministry of Coal was incorrect, in comparison to information furnished to Audit.

The report records what Ministry of Finance stated in June 2017:"Budget Division compiles the information strictly on the basis of the information furnished by the respective Ministries/Departments. Ministry further added that Budget Division has no means to verify the authenticity of the information provided by the Ministries/Departments independently. Citing the example of inconsistent information on arrears of non-tax revenue by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry stated that Audit itself has attested error on the part of the line Ministry. Ministry of Finance however added that efforts were being made to rectify the errors/ inconsistency." CAG responded to it saying, "Ministry of Finance, being the nodal Ministry for the administration of the FRBM Act, should issue appropriate directions to all the Ministries/Departments to ensure coordination so that correct and consistent figures are included in the prescribed disclosure forms and other linked documents.

The report records that in the Annual Financial Statement and Union Government Finance Accounts, the estimates and actual collection from Tax Revenue are reflected after taking into account the amount of refunds (including interest on refunds). Analysis of direct  tax receipt of the Union Government, revealed that substantial portion of tax collected are refunded every year. In financial year 2015-16, amount of refunds included Rs 6,886 crore as expenditure on interest on refunds. Though the amount of refunds was substantial, no information about the quantum of refunds was disclosed either in the Annual Financial Statement or in the Union Government Finance Accounts. As such, the accounts of the Government were not transparent in respect of information on Tax Revenue collections.

The Ministry stated (June 2017) that in Finance Accounts revenue receipts are categorized as ‘Tax Revenue Receipts’ and ‘Non-tax Revenue Receipts’ and figures for Direct Taxes are not shown separately. It added that in Finance  Accounts, tax collections are accounted/shown at the minor head level which are net of refunds. Refund of revenue is accounted for at one level below, viz. sub  head level.

CAG responded: "Reply of the Ministry does not address the audit concern relating to transparency in accountal of gross tax collection and refunds made therefrom in a year, although net collections are captured in the accounts. The Union Government Finance Accounts are prepared at Minor Head level, whereas the amount of refunds despite being significant are recorded at a lower level of classification and thereby refunds get obscured in this compilation. Appropriate disclosure of this information in the Union Government Finance Account or in Budget documents would address the transparency requirement as envisaged in the FRBM Act."

The details of liabilities are also reflected through Union Government Finance Accounts (UGFA) showed variation in the position of liabilities of the Government at the end of financial year 2015-16, as reflected through Receipt Budget and UGFA. The gross liabilities on account of National Small Savings, Provident Funds, Other Accounts in Public Account in the UGFA 2015-16 have been reflected as Rs 12,31,500 crore. However in Receipt Budget, the National Small Savings, Provident Funds, Other Accounts liabilities though shown on gross basis, has a variation of Rs 43,139 crore on account of non-inclusion of amount of investment of Post Office Insurance Fund through Private Fund Managers.

Responding to these findings, the Ministry stated in June 2017 that "the observation regarding variation in the amount of total liabilities is being examined and comments/reply in this regard will be communicated shortly." It is not clear whether the Ministry communicated its promised reply regarding variation in the amount of total liabilities.  

The report has recorded variation in expenditure on grants for creation of capital assets. In the Budget document, figure of actual expenditure incurred on grants for creation of capital assets appears in Budget at a Glance and Ministry-wise details thereof are appended with Expenditure Budget, Volume-I. In Union Government Finance Accounts, compiled by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA) under the Ministry of Finance, this figure appears in Appendix to Statement No. 9 as a disclosure statement. Accounts at a Glance is another document published by the CGA providing macro level overview of financial information of the Government for relevant year. While comparing the actual figure of expenditure on grants for creation of capital assets for financial year 2015-16, variation was noticed between the Budget documents and documents compiled/prepared by CGA.

The Ministry stated (June 2017) that information provided in the Budget Statement on grants for creation of capital assets was based on the inputs/information provided by various Ministries/Departments. It further submitted that Budget Division has no means to verify the authenticity of the information provided by the Ministries/Departments independently. Ministry  however intimated that efforts are being made to rectify the errors/ inconsistency.

CAG observed: "Ministry of Finance, being the nodal Ministry for the administration of the FRBM Act, should ensure that information being collected and disclosed under the Act is complete, accurate and consistent with other Government documents brought out by the various arms of the same Ministry." It is not clear whether CAG's advice has been paid heed to.  

The audit report made the following recommendations:
i. Deferment of fiscal targets needs to be carried out through appropriate amendment in the Act.
ii. The disclosure relating to liability on annuity projects may be modified  suitably to reflect the amount of unpaid annuity liability at the end of a particular financial year.
iii. An appropriate mechanism needs to be put in place by the Government to avoid instances of inconsistencies in estimation and correct reporting of components of expenditure having bearing on deficit indicators.
iv. The Government may transfer specific purpose levies/cess collected to the designated funds.
v. A mechanism for recognising the result of annual operation of NSSF and its impact on the Government finances may be put in place.
vi. Criteria for classification of expenditure as grants for creation of capital assets may be prescribed for appropriate compliance by the Ministry/Department. Assets created out of such grants but not owned by the grantee organization may be excluded from categorizing as grants for creation of capital assets.
vii. The Government may strengthen the process of making underlying assumptions for projections of receipt and expenditure in various fiscal policy statements to insulate them from frequent changes and to seamlessly integrate the projections in the Budget.
viii. The Government should ensure adequate transparency and consistency in its fiscal operations so that fiscal indicators are computed accurately and disclosure forms as mandated under the Act contain correct information.

Its recommendation reads:"The Government should ensure adequate transparency and consistency in its fiscal operations so that fiscal indicators are computed accurately and disclosure forms as mandated under the Act contain correct information."

Its conclusion reads:"Transparency in fiscal operations of the Government is an important ingredient to achieve the accurate target of fiscal indicators envisaged under the FRBM Act. However, there was lack of transparency in disclosing the deficit figures in Budget at a Glance and Annual Financial Statements. Expenditure on grants for creation of capital assets as disclosed through Union Government Finance Accounts and Expenditure Budget was at variance. Further, gross liability position of the Government shown through Union Government Finance Accounts and Receipt Budget were also at variance. Though a significant amount of refund  is made from gross direct tax collection, its depiction is obscured in the Government Finance Accounts and other publications. The disclosures made by the Government through various Forms envisaged under the FRBM Act were not complete and at variance with corresponding information contained in Union Government Finance Accounts"

The report was signed by Mukesh Prasad Singh, Director General of Audit, Central Government and counter signed by Shashi Kant Sharma, 12th CAG of India on July 14, 2017. Sharma demitted the office of CAG of India on September 24, 2017. While being in that position had assumed the office of Chairman of United Nations Board of Auditors on January 11 2017 and demitted it when he ceased to be the CAG of India.

The 89 page long report of the CAG-Report No. 20 of 2018-discusses the compliance of the provisions of FRBM Act, 2003 and the Rules made thereunder by the Union Government for the financial year 2016-17. Audit has examined a few cases of off budget financing and analyzed impact of such operations on overall fiscal operations. It has underlined that "Government has increasingly resorted to off-budget financing for revenue as well as capital spending." It pointed out that "There is mismatch between the provision under FRBM Act and corresponding provision under FRBM Rules in respect of liability targets." It observed:"The Government could not meet the mid-year fiscal deficit and Revenue deficit target of 70 per cent of Budget Estimate for the year 2016-17 even after relaxing this target twice from 45 per cent in 2004-05 to 60 per cent in 2012-13 and 70 per cent in 2015-16. Further, factors responsible for such deviation vis-à-vis expenditure and receipt, and specific corrective measures, which Government was to take in the year, were not presented in the statement to the Parliament." For some reason this report is referred to as the third report of the CAG on the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Union Government for the year ended March 2017.

It records: "Taking into account the understatement of Public Account liability of 7,63,280 crore, total liability of the Central Government at the end of the financial year 2016-17 would be ` 76,69,545 crore which is 50.5 per cent of  GDP rather than 45.5 per cent against the projection of 47.10 per cent in MTFP statement 2016-17." It also records: "Misclassification of expenditure, short/non-transfer of levy/cess to earmarked funds in the Public Account from the CFI, etc. resulted in understatement of revenue expenditure at least by 50,999 crore and hence revenue deficit was understated by the same amount." It records: Refunds of 1,72,894 crore (including interest on refunds of taxes) were made from gross direct tax collection in financial year 2016-17 but no  corresponding disclosure was available in the Government accounts." It pointed out: "Disclosure statements mandated under the FRBM Act and the Rules made thereunder placed before Parliament reflected inconsistencies relating to disclosure of non-tax revenue and assets." The report was signed by Mamta Kundra, Director General of Audit, Central Government on July 25, 2018 and counter signed by the Rajiv Mehrishi, the 13th CAG of India on July 25, 2018. Just prior to the signatures is a recommendation which reads: "Government may ensure explicit disclosures of all transactions having fiscal implications and avoid presenting mis-matched figures."

The CAG's report made the following  recommendations:
(i) The Government may ensure adherence to the medium term fiscal path as specified under FRBM Act/Rules and align its annual achievements accordingly.
(ii) Mid-year benchmarks for comparison with pro-rata performance against the budget estimates should be realistic and mid-course corrections should enable achievement of year-end targets, which should be disclosed transparently to Parliament.
(iii) Government may consider putting in place a policy framework for off-budget financing, which, amongst others, should include disclosure to Parliament:
a) The rationale and objective of off-budget financing, quantum of off-budget financing and budgetary support under the same project/scheme/programme, instruments and sources of financing, means and strategy for debt servicing of off budget financing, etc.
b) Details of off budget financing undertaken during a financial year by/through all the bodies/companies substantially owned by Government; and
c) Government may consider disclosing the details of off-budget Borrowings through disclosure statements in Budget as well as in Accounts.
(iv) Government may ensure that all transfers/funds meant to be kept in the designated funds in Public Account, including those for meeting future liability, specific-purpose cesses, etc. are not kept in the Consolidated  Fund to avoid overstatement of revenue receipts.
(v) Government may lay down guidelines for treating which items created out of grants for creation of capital assets qualify as Capital Assets and expenditure only for those assets should be considered as grants for creation of capital assets.
(vi) Government may ensure explicit disclosures of all transactions having fiscal implications and avoid presenting mis-matched figures.

The 96-page long report of the CAG for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19-Report No. 6 of 2021-on the compliance of the provisions of the FRBM Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Union Government for the year ended March 2016 contained significant results arising from the review of compliance of the provisions of the Act. The instances mentioned in the report are those, which came to notice in the course of test audit for the period 2015-16. The matters relating to the period prior to and subsequent to 2015-16 were included, wherever deemed necessary. It dealt with the years ending in March 2018 and March 2019. The report was signed by Manish Kumar, Director General of Audit, Finance & Communication, CAG of India on June 30, 2021counter signed by Girish Chandra Murmu, the 14th CAG of India on July 5, 2021. Murmu was the CAG till November 20, 2024. This report has been mentioned as the second report of the CAG on the compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder by the Union Government for the year ended March 2017.

Notably, just prior to the signatures is an audit summation which reads: "Audit noticed variations in RD and FD figures between those depicted in the Budget at a Glance(BAG) and those depicted in the Union Government Finance Accounts (AFS) for both years,due to netting of certain receipts and expenditure in the BAG. The balances under National Small Savings Fund (NSSF) do not explicitly disclose the substantial accumulated deficit in the fund and significant amounts loaned for funding revenue expenditure of the Government which would have to be serviced through budgetary support. Further, there were inadequacies in disclosures in Form D-2 - Arrears of Non-Tax Revenue and D-4 - Asset Register."

 

Form D-2 is one of the disclosure forms which provides details of arrears of Non-Tax Revenue (NTR). Disclosure Form D-4 relates to physical and financial assets of the Government. Receipt Budget 2020-21 provides details of assets of the Union Government as at the end of reporting year 2018-19. As per the disclosure made by the Government, the cumulative total of assets at the end of the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 was `15,10,277.64 crore and 16,99,853.14 crore respectively. During audit, errors in compilation of assets by various Ministries were also noticed. Assets were found to be overstated by `5,90,875 crore. In addition, inconsistency was noticed in figures of loans to Foreign Governments. Examination of Form D-4 revealed that a sum of 14,077.04 crore was shown as loans outstanding from Foreign Governments at the end of 2017-18. Similar information contained in the Union Government Finance Accounts (UGFA)2017-18, revealed that a sum of 13,433.02 crore was outstanding as loans from foreign Governments. Thus, there was a variation of `644.02 crore of loans outstanding from foreign Governments. Similar examination of Form D-4 for 2018-19 revealed that a sum of 14,093.67 crore was shown as loans outstanding from Foreign Governments whereas information contained in the UGFA 2018-19 revealed that a sum of 13,558.87 crore was outstanding as loans from foreign Governments. Thus, there was a variation of 534.80 crore of loans outstanding from foreign Governments. Variation in figures of closing and opening balances of assets On examination of Form D-4 appended with Receipts Budget 2019-20 and 2020-21, variations were noticed in the closing and opening balances of assets.

Significantly, opening balance of assets for 2018-19 was less by 3,116.36 crore as compared to the carry-over balance of assets at the end of 2017-18. The Ministry of Finance explained (June 2020 and December 2020) that the same was due to revision in the opening balance on account of factors such as a) inclusion of “Railway Safety Fund” by Ministry of Railway, b) omission of investment in HEFA and c) reporting of assets by additional Missions in Ministry of External Affairs. The reasons for the variation disclosed by Government lack adequate transparency as instead of an item wise quantitative reconciliation of the variation of `3,116 crore, only instances were mentioned without quantification. The Ministry further replied that footnotes are also provided below the statements to insure clarity and transparency. However, effort shall be made to insure greater comprehensiveness in the footnote of statement of asset register. HEFA refers to Higher Education Financing Agency is a joint venture of Ministry of Education, Government of India and Canara Bank for financing creation of capital assets in premier educational institutions in India. HEFA is registered under Section 8 (Not-for-profit) under the Companies Act 2013 as a Union Govt company and as Non–deposit taking Systematically Important (NBFC-ND-SI) with RBI. HEFA incorporated on May 31, 2017, is a joint venture of Ministry of Education, Government of India and Canara Bank with an agreed equity participation in the ratio of 90.91% and 09.09% respectively. 

Section 2 (a) of the FRBM Act defines "fiscal deficit". It means "the excess of total disbursements, from the Consolidated Fund of India, excluding repayment of debt, over total receipts into the Fund (excluding the debt receipts), during a financial year."

Section 2 (bc) defines "gross domestic product". It means "the sum of the gross value added by all resident production units plus that part of taxes, less subsidies, on products, which is not included in the valuation of output, during a financial year, reckoned at current market prices, as published by the Central Statistics Office from time to time." Section 2 (ca) defines "real gross domestic product". It means "gross domestic product, reckoned at constant prices, as published by the Central Statistics Office from time to time." These definitions were inserted on March 31, 2018. 

The FRBM Act was amended by Finance Act, 2018. The words “achieving sufficient revenue surplus and” omitted from the long title of the original FRBM Act by section 210 of Act 13 of 2018 with effect from March 29, 2018.

Significantly,  through the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, more than 180 legal provisions were decriminalized. Now through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 over 1,000 offences have been "rationalized" and minor procedural violations across 79 Central Acts have been decriminalized. The Act amends 784 provisions administered by 23 Ministries. It turns 717 provisions into civil penalties and removes criminal/imprisonment terms for minor, technical, or procedural defaults. First-time and minor lapses are now typically addressed through formal advisories or warnings rather than immediate financial penalties or court trials. The Act introduces a structured adjudication mechanism, allowing civil penalties to be imposed by executive authorities (like Deputy Commissioners) rather than through courts.