Government of India

Lore & Background

The Government of India traces its legislative roots to British colonial rule, beginning with the Indian Councils Act 1909, which introduced elections to the Imperial Legislative Council. The Government of India Act 1919 expanded this into a bicameral system with a Central Legislative Assembly and a Council of State, while the Government of India Act 1935 laid the foundation for a federal structure and provincial autonomy, though it did not grant full self-rule. Between 1947 and 1950, India was a dominion under a constitutional monarchy, with the Constituent Assembly drafting the constitution.

Reader's Guide

The Government of India is significant as the central authority of the world's largest democracy, operating under a quasi-federal system that blends federal and unitary elements. Its structure, derived from the British Westminster model, includes a bicameral parliament, an executive council responsible to the lower house, and an independent judiciary with the Supreme Court at its apex. The government's powers are defined by the Constitution, which also outlines the roles of states and union territories. The president serves as head of state and commander-in-chief, while the prime minister heads the executive. The government's legal system is based on English common law and statutory law. Its evolution from British colonial reforms through dominion status to a republic reflects a gradual development of representative governance. The terms 'Union government' and 'Central government' are used interchangeably, and 'New Delhi' serves as a metonym for the government's seat. The government's ability to legislate is subject to judicial review, and the Lok Sabha can be dissolved if the ruling party loses majority support, while the Rajya Sabha is a permanent house.

Did You Know?

• The Government of India is legally referred to as the Union Government, the Union of India, or the Central Government.
• The Constitution of India came into effect on 26 January 1950, replacing the monarch and governor-general with a president as head of state.
• The first elections to the Imperial Legislative Council were introduced by the Indian Councils Act 1909, also known as the Morley-Minto reforms.
• The Government of India Act 1935 was the longest Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom until surpassed by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

Funding Architecture and Financial Scale

The Government of India organises its social welfare and social security schemes into two principal funding categories. Central sector schemes are fully financed by the union government, while centrally sponsored schemes receive the bulk of their funding from the center but are implemented by the states. By the 2022 Union budget, this architecture encompassed 740 central sector schemes alongside approximately 65 centrally sponsored schemes. The financial scale is enormous: centrally sponsored schemes alone carried a combined allocation of roughly ₹442,781 crore (equivalent to about US$52 billion in 2023 terms), and 157 schemes individually exceeded ₹500 crore in funding. Central sector actual spending grew from ₹587,785 crore in 2017-18 to a budgeted ₹1,051,703 crore for 2021-22. Ten flagship schemes were allocated ₹1.5 lakh crore in the 2021 budget. The portfolio also reflects long-term policy shifts: the kerosene subsidy, first introduced in the 1950s, was gradually reduced from 2009 and ultimately eliminated in 2022, marking the end of a decades-old welfare commitment.

Rationalisation and Structural Reform

Streamlining the vast web of welfare schemes has been a recurring governance priority across different governments. In 2002, under the Vajpayee administration, there were approximately 360 centrally sponsored schemes. By 2022, the Modi government had 704 central sector schemes. A 2016 committee recommended rationalising, revamping, and restructuring 66 CSSs by grouping them into umbrella, core, and optional categories, aiming to simplify beneficiary identification and differentiate funding patterns. The union government further set a target to reduce the CSS count from 131 in February 2021 down to 65 within the following year. When a scheme is elevated to mission status or coupled under a broader mission, it signals heightened prioritization in both implementation and funding. Similar schemes can be merged and revamped, and an existing mission can be folded into a newer scheme. This ongoing rationalisation reflects a sustained attempt to make the welfare architecture more coherent, accountable, and easier for citizens to navigate.

Evaluation Challenges and Mixed Effectiveness

Assessing whether welfare schemes actually deliver their intended outcomes remains deeply problematic. The Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office under NITI Aayog, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India all play roles in evaluation and audit. Yet significant obstacles persist. Transport schemes can display tangible physical outputs, whereas health-related schemes often lack measurable results. Surveys suffer from respondent bias—beneficiaries may deny having received aid in hopes of qualifying again. The CAG in 2017 declared Beti Bachao Beti Padhao a failure by its own stated objectives. Despite numerous hunger and nutrition programmes, malnutrition remains a severe challenge across the country. The Supreme Court has cautioned the government to weigh fiscal realities when launching new schemes, citing the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act of 2009, under which schools and teachers remain in critical short supply. Flagship initiatives like Namami Gange and Ayushman Bharat have seen sanctioned amounts consistently exceed actual spending since their inception, raising questions about last-mile delivery.

Political Credit, Blame, and Electoral Use

No formal or legalised mechanism exists for sharing political credit between the center and states over jointly funded schemes, making attribution a persistent source of intergovernmental friction. In 2014, Congress accused the Modi government of claiming credit for schemes launched by earlier administrations. In 2017, BJP directed blame at Telangana Rashtra Samithi for similar appropriation. The Himachal Pradesh government faulted NITI Aayog for cutting CSS funding. In 2019, Mamata Banerjee charged Modi with taking credit for Ayushman Bharat, while in 2020 Modi blamed the Aam Aadmi Party for failing to implement a centrally sponsored scheme. Smriti Irani in 2021 accused Banerjee of claiming credit for central government schemes, and BJP criticised Jharkhand Mukti Morcha over poor implementation. Beyond mutual blame, welfare schemes function as electoral instruments. BJP has explicitly leveraged scheme implementation as a vote bank in the 2017 and 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections and the 2019 general election, effectively treating beneficiaries as a captive voting bloc.

Gallery