Observatory to enhance engagement among government, citizens, academia, & industry, along with improvement in decision-making processes: Hardeep S Puri

To Provide Scientific Response to Complex Challenges in Urbanization through Use of State-of-The-Art Technologies & Collaborations Video Wall Showcases Insights Gained from Observatory & Various Missions/ Offices Aiming To Proactively Engage with Citizens/ Visitors in Spreading Awareness

Shri Hardeep S Puri, Minister of State (I/C) for Housing and Urban Affairs, has stated that as cities begin to implement ‘smart’ solutions, data becomes a significant asset and enabler for data driven Governance, leading to urban transformation. While inaugurating state-of-the-art India Urban Observatory here today, he said that it will plug into the myriad sources of data from cities, both from real-time and archival sources. While inaugurating the Video Wall, he said that it will showcase the insights gained from the Observatory and the various Missions/ offices with the idea to proactively engage with citizens/ visitors in spreading awareness about the various initiatives of the Ministry. Sh Durga Shanker Mishra, Secretary, MOHUA, Sh Kunal Kumar, JS/Mission Director, Smart Cities Mission and senior officers of the ministry were also present on the occasion.

Speaking on the occasion, Shri Hardeep Puri said that it is imperative for the empowerment of communities that cities work on using information available through various sources to improve their functioning, public services, governance systems, achievements and failures in the public domain, thereby, empowering their citizens through the access to information. He said, the future of Governance is data-driven and Indian cities are beginning to adopt this change in their functioning. He said, bringing PEOPLE in ‘focus’ needs a move towards outcome-based planning in governance. “The Observatory will help in getting reliable, up-to-date information on a meaningful set of indicators over various domains such as transport, health, environment, water, finance and so on, which will further assist in developing best practices, future strategies and policy interventions as and when required”, he added.

Shri Puri pointed out that the conceptualisation of this Observatory recognizes the value of enhancing engagement among all four stakeholders of the ‘quadruple-helix’ model— Government, citizens, academia, and industry, along with improvements in the internal workflow and decision-making processes of city Governments. He further elaborated that the India Urban Observatory would progressively become the chief data analysis and Management Hub of the Ministry and would enable evidence-based policy formulation, capacity building of ecosystem partners on data-driven governance, foster innovation through development of newer and better use cases thereby enabling solutions at scale and speed. “It will provide scientific response to the complex challenges to urbanization through use of state-of-the-art technologies and collaborations”, he said.

The India Urban Observatory is an important component of the recently launched DataSmart Cities strategy that envisions to create a ‘Culture of Data’ in cities, for intelligent use of data in addressing complex urban challenges. The strategy aims to lay down the basic premise, three foundational pillars vis. People, Process, Platform, and a suggested roadmap for cities to improve their readiness for intelligent use of data. Making cities ‘DataSmart’ is key to realizing the full potential of technology interventions and innovation ecosystems in cities.

(https://smartnet.niua.org/dsc/datasmartcity-stratergy.php). The DataSmart Cities Strategy also presents a Data Maturity Assessment Framework (DMAF), that measures the readiness and evolution of cities in their efforts to implementing the Data strategy. The assessment of cities as per the DMAF will foster a culture of data and drive innovation in India’s Smart Cities through a spirit of collaboration and healthy competition. (https://smartnet.niua.org/dsc/dmaf.php)

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) submitted a report on ‘Performance of the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY)’ on August 7, 2018. PMSSY was introduced in 2003 to correct imbalances in the availability of tertiary healthcare services and improve the quality of medical education. The scheme has two components: (i) setting up of new AIIMS, and (ii) upgradation of selected Government Medical College Institutions (GMCIs). Over the years, the scheme has been expanded to cover 20 new AIIMS and 71 GMCIs. The audit covers the period from 2003 to 17. Key observations and recommendations of the audit include:

Planning and implementation: The CAG observed that no operational guidelines had been formulated for PMSSY since its inception. This resulted in several ad hoc decisions being taken with respect to key aspects of the scheme. In case of setting up new AIIMS, initial approval was not based on a comprehensive assessment of the scope of work. This led to an increase in costs and delays of up to five years. In case of GMCIs, the criteria for selection of institutes was not formulated resulting in arbitrary selection.

In this context, the CAG recommended that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare must expedite the formulation of operational guidelines to regulate the implementation of the scheme. It also recommended that evaluation studies could be taken up for status check and to identify weaknesses in planning and implementation.

Financial management: During 2004-17, the government allocated Rs 14,971 crore for the scheme. However, only 61% (Rs 9,207 crore) of these funds were released. Further, a significant portion of the funds remained underutilised due to: (i) delays in obtaining approval, (ii) slow pace of procurement of equipment, (iii) non-filling up of posts, and (iv) pending utilisation certificates. The CAG noted that there was no mechanism in place for monitoring actual expenditure which led to accumulation of unspent funds.

It was found that the Ministry had estimated the capital cost for setting up six new AIIMS to be Rs 332 crore per institute. After four years, this cost was revised to Rs 820 crore per institute, on account of shortcomings in planning and assessment of requirements. The CAG recommended that the Ministry should ensure adherence to contract provisions in the execution of works. In addition, accountability should be fixed where there is additional expenditure without adequate justification.

Delays in execution: The CAG observed that all new AIIMS overshot their completion time by almost five years. There were similar delays observed in the upgradation of GMCIs, as only eight of the 16 GMCIs selected for the audit were completed. These delays were attributed to poor contract management and weak monitoring. Further, there were deficiencies in the execution of works, such as: (i) improper estimation of scope and quantities, (ii) delay in procurement and installation of equipment, and (iii) extra payment to contractors. In this context, the CAG recommended that steps should be taken to expedite the completion of leftover work by better monitoring of projects.

Human resources: The CAG observed that there is acute shortage of faculty and non-faculty posts at AIIMS. These shortages restricted the functioning of several departments and led to reliance on outsourced employees on a contractual basis. Further, delays in filling up sanctioned posts were attributed to delay in finalising recruitment rules, court cases and non-availability of eligible candidates. In case of GMCIs, the institutes faced shortage of manpower to run super speciality departments. The CAG recommended that the Ministry take effective steps to minimise the shortage of faculty, non faculty and technical manpower in the new AIIMS and GMCIs.

Monitoring committees: The audit noted that the committees constituted at national, state, and institute levels to review project implementation remained non-functional. Further, monitoring of upgradation of GMCIs was left entirely to concerned institutes, without any involvement of the Ministry or state governments. The CAG recommended that effective monitoring by the committees was necessary for synchronisation of activities related to completion of works and procurement of equipment.

The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India submitted its report on ‘National Projects of the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation’ on July 20, 2018. The audit was conducted for the period 2008-17. Key findings and recommendations of the CAG include:

Underperformance of the scheme: In February 2008, the government approved a scheme of national projects, under which it identified 16 major water resource development and irrigation projects. These projects were previously under the Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme. However, the progress of these projects had declined due to various factors. These include land acquisition, inter-state coordination, financial constraints, and issues relating to rehabilitation and re-settlement of the affected population. The scheme was aimed to ensure coordinated and focussed action to expedite the execution and completion of these 16 projects. The performance audit of the scheme has revealed that this objective of the scheme remains unachieved.

Of the 16 national projects, only five projects with an estimated irrigation potential of 25 lakh hectare are under implementation. Of this, 14.5 lakh hectare irrigation potential has been created, but only 5.3 lakh hectare (36.5%) is being utilised. The remaining 11 projects with an estimated irrigation potential of 10.4 lakh hectare are yet to commence.

Delays in execution: Execution of projects has been delayed due to administrative delays, non-adherence to rules, poor contract management, and lack of effective and timely monitoring.

To expedite the implementation of the scheme, the CAG has recommended that these projects may be taken up in a mission mode. Nodal officers may be designated at the central level to effectively monitor the progress of the projects under implementation. This would also remove bottlenecks in coordinating with state authorities.

Financial over-runs: The cost escalation in the five projects before their inclusion in the scheme was Rs 32,802 crore. However, since their inclusion under the scheme of national projects, two of these projects, Indira Sagar Polavaram project and Gosikhurd project, have together registered a cost escalation of Rs 49,840 crore over the previous escalation. The remaining three projects have already overshot their approved completion time and none of them is near completion. The overall cost of the five projects has been escalated by 2,341%.

To address the issue of cost escalation, the CAG has recommended that contract management should be streamlined. In addition, accountability should be fixed on project authorities for deficient contract management.

Physical progress: The shortfall in terms of physical progress in different components of the projects has ranged from 8% to 99%. Slow implementation has been attributed to: (i) management failures, (ii) non-adherence to provisions relating to surveys and investigations, (iii) obtaining statutory clearances for project sites, and (iv) administrative delays in land acquisitions.

Command Area Development (CAD): As of March 2017, none of the five projects under implementation had sent any proposal for CAD works to Central Water Commission (CWC) for approval. CAD works provide last mile connectivity through distributaries, and in the absence of their implementation, irrigation potential created through these projects cannot be utilised. In this regard, the CAG has recommended that the Ministry of Water Resources should ensure simultaneous implementation of CAD works with these projects. The Ministry may also ask the concerned states to submit their CAD proposals to the CWC at the earliest.

Monitoring mechanisms: Lack of adequate and effective monitoring has contributed to the poor progress of the completion of projects. The lack of timely action to deal with breaches and damages to created infrastructure has contributed to inadequate maintenance of created assets. The CAG has recommended strengthening the monitoring mechanisms with regular meetings between the Ministry and the state departments to identify obstructions in completing projects.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had constituted a High Level Task Force (Chair: Mr. Y. M. Deosthalee) to assess the need and scope of setting up a Public Credit Registry in India. The task force submitted its report on April 4, 2018.

A public credit registry refers to an extensive database of credit information of borrowers that is accessible to all lending and credit decision-making institutions. Typically, the registry is managed by a public authority like the central bank of the country, and reporting of loan details to the registry by lenders and/or borrowers is mandated by the law. 2018.

The terms of reference of the task force included: (i) reviewing the current availability of credit information in India and assessing its gaps, (ii) studying the best international practices on credit registries, and (iii) determining the scope and structure of a comprehensive credit registry, if any.2018.

Current Indian context: Presently, India has both public and private sector entities storing credit data: (i) There are four private Credit Information Companies (CICs) – TransUnion Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited (TransUnion CIBIL), Equifax, Experian and CRIF High Mark. RBI has mandated all regulated credit institutions to report borrower credit information to all CICs. 2018.

(ii) Entities within RBI are: (i) Central Repository of Information on Large Credits (CRILC), and (ii) Basic Statistical Return-1 (BSR-1). CRILC contains credit information on all borrowers having exposure greater than five crore rupees. BSR-1 provides sectoral distribution of credit for all borrowings regardless of amount; and hence it does not have individual borrower identification. 2018.

(iii) There are also institutions that capture specific credit information – for example, Information Utilities, registered under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, store financial information such as debt, liabilities, and balance sheet details that helps establish defaults. 2018.

Challenges with current scenario: The task force identified various shortcomings of the current credit information infrastructure in India, such as: (i) the data stored is not comprehensive, and is fragmented across different entities, for example, data on borrowings from banks, inter-corporate borrowings, overseas borrowings etc., are not available in a single repository; (ii) it is reliant on self-disclosure, for example, income details, assets and liabilities are disclosed by the borrower; (iii) the data has to be cross-validated, for example, income tax websites have to be checked for listed companies; (iv) there are time lags and discrepancies between multiple sources of information; (v) there is increased reporting burden on credit institutions from having to report to multiple entities; and (vi) portals like CIBIL are paid portals and the lender has to bear the cost of extracting data. 2018.

Consequences of the current Indian structure: The information asymmetry and fragmented nature of credit reporting leads to the following inefficiencies in the credit market: (i) since lending institutions do not have complete credit information on all borrowers, all borrowers pay similar interests irrespective of their risk or credit ratings; (ii) lenders may pick up clients who have a history of delinquency that is unknown to all lenders, and thereby face greater overall credit risk; (iii) it prevents credit supply to some subsections of the market, for example, small and medium industries are perceived as risky by default, and often denied timely credit due to lack of adequate credit history. 2018.

Public credit registry: The task force noted that transparency in credit markets helps creditors and borrowers alike by removing information asymmetry and improving access to credit. To bring about such transparency, it recommended setting up a public credit registry. The credit registry should: (i) be backed by a suitable legal framework, (ii) store information on all loans regardless of the amount, (iii) capture information currently not recorded in the credit information system, for example, data on external borrowings, (iv) store supplementary credit data, like utility bill payments history, for the benefit of individuals with no credit history, and (vi) ensure security and privacy of the stored information. Borrowers may access their own credit report, and access to all stakeholders should be on a need-to-know basis and be used only for the authorised purpose. Additionally, the reporting entities should ensure the quality of data reported to the registry. 2018.

International practice: Several countries, such as most members of the European Union, have a central credit registry usually managed by the central bank of the country. Reporting to the registry is mandatory by law. It provides credit reports to lenders and borrowers (on their own situation). Along with the public registry, there also exist multiple private credit bureaus, reporting to which tend to be voluntary in nature. Private bureaus augment their credit information with data from other sources like public registries, tax authorities, utility bill payments databases and legal proceedings database, and provide such data to lenders. They also provide services like credit assessment and scoring.

The Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India (Chair: Justice B. N. Srikrishna) submitted its report and draft Bill to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology on July 27, 2018. The Committee was constituted in August, 2017 to examine issues related to data protection, recommend methods to address them, and draft a data protection Bill. 2018.

Fiduciary relationship: The Committee observed that the regulatory framework has to balance the interests of the individual with regard to his personal data and the interests of the entity such as a service provider who has access to this data. It noted that the relationship between the individual and the service provider must be viewed as a fiduciary relationship. This is due to the dependence of the individual on the service provider to obtain a service. Therefore, the service provider processing the data is under an obligation to deal fairly with the individual’s personal data, and use it for the authorised purposes only.

Obligations of fiduciaries: To prevent abuse of power by service providers, the law should establish their basic obligations, including: (i) the obligation to process data fairly and reasonably, and (ii) the obligation to give notice to the individual at the time of collecting data to various points in the interim.

Definition of personal data: The Committee noted that it is important to define what constitutes personal information. It defined personal data to include data from which an individual may be identified or identifiable, either directly or indirectly. The Committee sought to distinguish personal data protection from the protection of sensitive personal data, since its processing could result in greater harm to the individual. Sensitive data is related to intimate matters where there is a higher expectation of privacy (e.g., caste, religion, and sexual orientation of the individual).

Consent-based processing: The Committee noted that consent must be treated as a pre-condition for processing personal data. Such consent should be informed or meaningful. Further, for certain vulnerable groups, such as children, and for sensitive personal data, a data protection law must sufficiently protect their interests, while considering their vulnerability, and exposure to risks online. Further, sensitive personal information should require explicit consent of the individual.

Non-consensual processing: The Committee noted that it is not possible to obtain consent of the individual in all circumstances. Therefore, separate grounds may be established for processing data without consent. The Committee identified four bases for non-consensual processing: (i) where processing is relevant for the state to discharge its welfare functions, (ii) to comply with the law or with court orders in India, (iii) when necessitated by the requirement to act promptly (to save a life, for instance), and (iv) in employment contracts, in limited situations (such, as where giving the consent requires an unreasonable effort for the employer).

Participation rights: The rights of the individual are based on the principles of autonomy, self-determination, transparency and accountability to give individuals control over their data. The Committee categorised these rights in three categories: (i) the right to access, confirmation and correction of data, (ii) the right to object to data processing, automated decision-making, direct marketing and the right to data portability, and (iii) the right to be forgotten.

Enforcement models: The Committee also recommended setting up a regulator to enforce the regulatory framework. The Authority will have the power to inquire into any violations of the data protection regime, and can take action against any data fiduciary responsible for the same. The Authority may also categorise certain fiduciaries as significant data fiduciaries based on their ability to cause greater harm to individuals. Such fiduciaries will be required to undertake additional obligations.

Amendments to Other Laws: The Committee noted that various allied laws are relevant in the context of data protection because they either require or authorise the processing of personal data. These laws include the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Census Act, 1948. It stated that the Bill provides minimum data protection standards for all data processing in the country. In the event of inconsistency, the standards set in the data privacy law will apply to the processing of data. The Committee also recommended amendments to the Aadhaar Act, 2016 to bolster its data protection framework.

Rights of the individual: The Bill sets out certain rights of the individual. These include: (i) right to obtain confirmation from the fiduciary on whether its personal data has been processed, (ii) right to seek correction of inaccurate, incomplete, or out-of-date personal data, and (iii) right to have personal data transferred to any other data fiduciary in certain circumstances.

Obligations of the data fiduciary: The Bill sets out obligations of the entity who has access to the personal data (data fiduciary). These include: (i) implementation of policies with regard to processing of data, (ii) maintaining transparency with regard to its practices on processing data, (iii) implementing security safeguards (such, as encryption of data), and (iv) instituting grievance redressal mechanisms to address complaints of individuals.

Data Protection Authority: The Bill provides for the establishment of a Data Protection Authority. The Authority is empowered to: (i) take steps to protect interests of individuals, (ii) prevent misuse of personal data, and (iii) ensure compliance with the Bill. It will consist of a chairperson and six members, with knowledge of at least 10 years in the field of data protection and information technology. Orders of the Authority can be appealed to an Appellate Tribunal established by the central government and appeals from the Tribunal will go to the Supreme Court.

Grounds for processing personal data: The Bill allows processing of data by fiduciaries if consent is provided. However, in certain circumstances, processing of data may be permitted without consent of the individual. These grounds include: (ii) if necessary for any function of Parliament or state legislature, or if required by the state for providing benefits to the individual, (iii) if required under law or for the compliance of any court judgement, (iv) to respond to a medical emergency, threat to public health or breakdown of public order, or, (v) for reasonable purposes specified by the Authority, related to activities such as fraud detection, debt recovery, and whistle blowing.

Grounds for processing sensitive personal data: Processing of sensitive personal data is allowed on certain grounds, including: (i) based on explicit consent of the individual, (ii) if necessary for any function of Parliament or state legislature, or, if required by the state for providing benefits to the individual, or (iii) if required under law or for the compliance of any court judgement.

Sensitive personal data includes passwords, financial data, biometric data, genetic data, caste, religious or political beliefs, or any other category of data specified by the Authority. Additionally, fiduciaries are required to institute appropriate mechanisms for age verification and parental consent when processing sensitive personal data of children.

Transfer of data outside India: Personal data (except sensitive personal data) may be transferred outside India under certain conditions. These include: (i) where the central government has prescribed that transfers to a particular country are permissible, or (ii) where the Authority approves the transfer in a situation of necessity.

Exemptions: The Bill provides exemptions from compliance with its provisions, for certain reasons including: (i) state security, (ii) prevention, investigation, or prosecution of any offence, or (iii) personal, domestic, or journalistic purposes.

Offences and Penalties: Under the Bill, the Authority may levy penalties for various offences by the fiduciary including (i) failure to perform its duties, (ii) data processing in violation of the Bill, and (iii) failure to comply with directions issued by the Authority. For example, under the Bill, the fiduciary is required to notify the Authority of any personal data breach which is likely to cause harm to the individual. Failure to promptly notify the Authority can attract a penalty of the higher of Rs 5 crore or 2% of the worldwide turnover of the fiduciary.

Amendments to other laws: The Bill makes consequential amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000. It also amends the Right to Information Act, 2005, and to permit non-disclosure of personal information where harm to the individual outweighs public good.

submitted a report on ‘Scheme on Development of Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture – An Analysis’ on July 25, 2018. The scheme focuses on increasing fish productivity, species diversification, and expansion of aquaculture area.

The key recommendations of the Standing Committee include: Diversification: The Committee observed that the scheme, since its inception in 1973-74, has seen under-achievement of targets due to improper implementation, which has restricted the growth of inland fisheries. It also observed that the share of freshwater aquaculture in inland fisheries has increased from 34% in mid-1980s to 80% in recent years. Therefore, the Committee recommended diversification of fish production in other areas like integrated fish farming, cold water fisheries, riverine fisheries, capture fisheries, and brackish water fisheries, among others. It also recommended that quality inputs in terms of seed, feed, and health management, should be provided, with emphasis on timely implementation for enhancing productivity.

Funding: The Committee observed that only Rs 400 crore was allocated out of the approved central outlay of Rs 598 crore in 2017-18. Given that only a portion of this would be allocated to inland fisheries and aquaculture, it noted that this allocation is insufficient and should be increased. It also observed that utilisation certificates (UCs) amounting to Rs 290 crore were pending as on March 31, 2017. It noted that under-utilisation of funds leads to the vicious cycle of lower allocation and downsized targets. It recommended corrective measures for liquidation of outstanding UCs in a time bound manner.

Scientific and Sustainable Methods: The Committee noted that Recirculatory Aquaculture System (RAS) is a scientific and sustainable method of fish farming which can be used to exponentially increase production. RAS is a production system that continuously filters and recycles water, enabling large-scale fish farming that requires a small amount of water without causing pollution. The Committee recommended that fish farmers should be encouraged to take up RAS practices, aided with easy availability of required funds and infrastructure.

Training: The Committee stressed on the need for inclusiveness in skill development programmes, with emphasis on the north-eastern and hilly states. It recommended special attention towards inclusion of fishermen from these areas in such programmes, so as to bring them at par with other fishermen. It also recommended special training for some fishermen, who can act as master trainers. They, in turn, would train other fishermen in better reception and retention of the skills and techniques provided during training.

Assessment: The Committee observed that no evaluation has been done to assess the actual number of ponds, wetlands, water logged areas, and other water bodies in the country, where fish cultivation is possible. It recommended that an evaluation should be undertaken to assess the actual number of water bodies with fishing potential within each state. It recommended that action plans should be prepared for each state, so that water bodies can be utilised optimally and their potential can be explored fully.

Availability of resources: The Committee stressed that fisheries should be treated at par with agriculture so that fish farmers get easier access to institutional credit and insurance. It recommended states to make policies regarding leasing out of water bodies by the Panchayats and to ensure deserving prices to fishers.

Cooperatives: The Committee noted that there is no proper mechanism in place to ensure that fish cooperatives function in an optimal way and to hold them accountable. It recommended the states to come up with a mechanism to measure the performance of the cooperatives and to ensure their accountability. It also recommended the states to formulate proper guidelines for leasing out the state resources to the cooperatives and guidelines for their maintenance