High fiscal deficit to pose challenge in lowering India’s debt to GDP ratio: Fitch

Agencies
February 10, 2021

1-196.jpg

New Delhi, Feb 10: Fitch Ratings on Wednesday said India's high fiscal deficit would pose a challenge in lowering the debt to GDP ratio, which is expected to remain above 90 per cent in the next five years.

It said India entered the pandemic with little fiscal headroom from a rating perspective. Its general government debt/GDP ratio stood at 72 per cent in 2019, against a median of 42 per cent for 'BBB' rated peers.

Fitch said the budget points to a loosening of fiscal policy to support the country's ongoing economic recovery from the pandemic and will consequently lead to a rise in public debt.

The debt/GDP trajectory is core to our sovereign rating assessment, meaning higher deficits and a slower consolidation path will make India's medium-term growth outlook take on a more critical role in our analysis, Fitch Ratings said in a statement.

It now expects public debt/GDP to rise above 90 per cent of GDP over the next five years, based on the revised budget targets. However, recent reforms and policy measures, including those announced in the budget, could also influence the rating agency's growth expectations and its debt trajectory forecasts.

Fitch estimated India to clock a 11 per cent growth in the fiscal beginning April and then grow at 6.5 per cent a year through to 2025-26 fiscal.

The agency had in June last year revised India's 'BBB-' rating outlook to negative from stable based on its assumptions of the likely impact of pandemic on public finance.

"The budget's deficit projections for the fiscal years ending March 2022 (FY22) to FY26 are about 1pp (percentage point) a year above our previous estimates between, which could make it more challenging to put debt/GDP on a downward trajectory," Fitch said.

India has exceeded its fiscal deficit target of 3.5 per cent in the current fiscal by a wide margin due to higher spendings to stimulate the economy amid the pandemic.

The fiscal deficit - the excess of government expenditure over its revenues - has been pegged at 9.5 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the current fiscal ending March 31, as per the revised estimate.

For the 2021-22 fiscal, beginning April 1, the deficit has been put at 6.8 per cent of the GDP, which will be further lowered to 4.5 per cent by 2025-26 fiscal ending March 31, 2026.

Fitch said the budget, presented in Parliament on February 1, has the potential to lift growth prospects. Higher expenditure will support the near-term recovery and increased infrastructure spending could boost sustainable medium-term growth rates.

Labour market and agricultural reforms that were legislated in September 2020 could also lift medium-term growth.

However, recent adverse court rulings have highlighted implementation challenges to these reforms, and there is a risk that fiscal spending could also fall short of planned levels. Meanwhile, the budget's proposed increases in import tariffs could dampen trade and economic growth, it said.

"Although there are implementation risks around aspects of the budget, we regard the government's overall fiscal projections as broadly credible.The budget's higher deficit forecasts are partly driven by positive steps toward greater transparency, as previously off-balance-sheet items, such as loans from the Food Corporation of India, have been brought on budget," Fitch added.

Fitch said the extent to which policy changes address weaknesses in India's financial sector will also influence the country's medium-term growth potential. "We believe the proposed injection of Rs 20,000 crore (USD2.7 billion) of new capital into state banks will be insufficient to alleviate the anticipated incremental stress on capital levels in 2021 and 2022. State banks are likely to continue to experience asset-quality problems, weak profitability and small capital buffers and, as a result, we project credit growth to remain soft in the absence of further government action".

The proposed establishment of an asset reconstruction company and an asset management company to deal with bad banking sector assets should be credit positive, dependent on the details of its structure and implementation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 13,2024

buldozerjustice.jpg

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 22,2024

Mangaluru: A man fell victim to an online scam, losing Rs 1.7 crore after fraudsters posed as officials from TRAI. According to a complaint filed at the CEN police station, the incident began on November 11, when the complainant received a call from an unknown number at 9:49 am.

The caller, claiming to represent TRAI, alleged that another mobile number registered under the complainant's name was involved in illegal activities in Andheri (East), Mumbai. The caller further stated that an FIR was lodged against the complainant for harassment under the guise of marketing. He was instructed to contact Andheri (East) police station immediately or risk his mobile service being deactivated within two hours.

The complainant was subsequently connected to an individual named Pradeep Sawant, who claimed the complainant was implicated in a money laundering scheme linked to the Naresh Goyal fraud case. Sawant alleged that a fraudulent bank account under the complainant's name was opened at Canara Bank, Andheri, and used to purchase a SIM card for illegal activities. He warned that the complainant could face arrest.

Later, the complainant was contacted via WhatsApp video call by individuals posing as Rahul Kumar (a police officer) and Akanksha (a CBI officer). They allegedly sent fabricated CBI documents to his WhatsApp number. The fraudsters demanded money to "resolve" the case. Fearing threats, the complainant allegedly transferred Rs 1.7 crore through RTGS in batches of Rs 53 lakh, Rs 74 lakh, and Rs 44 lakh between November 13 and 19. A case has been registered at the CEN police station and an investigation is ongoing.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
November 14,2024

srirang.jpg

Bengaluru: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi led union government has requested the Karnataka High Court to direct the Mandya district administration and the state government to clear a madrasa operating within the premises of the historic Jama Masjid in Srirangapatna.

The Waqf Board, opposing this move, has claimed the mosque as its property and defended the right to conduct madrasa activities there.

The matter was brought before a division bench headed by Chief Justice N V Anjaria following a public interest litigation filed by a person named Abhishek Gowda from Kabbalu village in Kanakapura taluk. The petition alleged “unauthorised madrasa activities” within the mosque.

Representing the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India for High Court of Karnataka, K Arvind Kamath argued that the Jama Masjid was designated as a protected monument in 1951, yet unauthorised madrasa operations continue there.

He noted that concerns over potential law and order issues have so far prevented any intervention. Kamath urged the court to direct the Mandya district administration to take action and vacate the madrasa from the mosque.

In defence, lawyers for the state government and the Waqf Board contested this request, stating that the Waqf Board had been recognised as the owner of the property since 1963 and, thus, conducting madrasa activities there is lawful.

After hearing both sides, the bench adjourned the case for further arguments, scheduling the next hearing for November 20.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.