Fiscal Health Index - 2026

Choose Report Type

Publication Date

Wed, 03/11/2026 - 15:10

Report Upload

Download (9.5 MB)

vertical

Economics & Finance-I

PDF Text

FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
For the Financial Year 2023-24
2026 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 NITI Aayog
Government of India
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, India
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX, Annual Report for the Financial Year 2023-24
Copyright@ NITI Aayog, 2026
Published: March 2026 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
For the Financial Year 2023-24
2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations��������������������������������������������������������������5
A. Introduction���������������������������������������������������������8
B. Studies on State Finances - A Brief Review��12
C. Defining Variables and Data Interpretation��16
D. Methodology�����������������������������������������������������22
E. Results: Major States and North Eastern
& Himalayan States������������������������������������������26
F.I State Profiles: 18 Major States������������������������64
F.II State Profiles: 10 North Eastern &
Himalayan States��������������������������������������������120
G. Appendix����������������������������������������������������������152 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 13
State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 14 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Globally, public finances are under mounting pressure, with total global public debt
reaching USD 102 trillion in 2024. Although developing countries hold less than
one-third of this debt, they have been taking on new debt almost twice as fast as
advanced economies since 2010. Debt service pressures are mounting, with half
of developing countries now paying at least 6.5% of export earnings toward debt
service, and 46 countries already spend more on interest than on either healthcare
or education, affecting 3.4 billion people in 2024.
1
These trends highlight how rising
debt can constrain policy choices and compress fiscal space. In India, where states
now account for almost one-third of general government debt, the sustainability
of national public finances is closely linked to the fiscal trajectory of states,
making regular and systematic assessment of state finances essential for
macroeconomic stability.
In this context, the Fiscal Health Index (FHI) of NITI Aayog serves as a comprehensive
framework for assessing and comparing the fiscal performance of Indian states.
The first release of the Index focused on 18 major states. Given the importance
of state finances to India’s economic resilience and sustainable growth, the FHI
was conceptualised to evaluate fiscal soundness, guide reforms, and encourage
evidence-based fiscal policymaking. Built on five key pillars of fiscal health, i.e.,
Quality of Expenditure, Revenue Mobilisation, Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index, and
Debt Sustainability, the Index provided a structured and transparent framework
using data from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
The second release of the FHI builds on the earlier framework while expanding both
its coverage and analytical depth. This edition evaluates not only the 18 General
Category States but also the 10 North-Eastern (NE) and Himalayan States
2
, making
the Index more inclusive and representative of India’s fiscal diversity for 2023-24.
The inclusion brings focus to fiscal patterns shaped by geographic remoteness,
demographic characteristics, and higher service delivery costs. Meanwhile,
the 18 major States continue to form the fiscal backbone of India’s economic
architecture.
The FHI continues to use the same five fiscal pillars and sub-indicators for 18
major states; however, the sub-indicators have been refined to capture the unique
structural characteristics and fiscal portfolios of NE states, such as difficult terrain and
sparse population density, limited own revenue capacity, and elevated committed
expenditures, alongside their greater reliance on Union transfers. Moreover, to
account for these differences, the Northeastern (NE) and Himalayan States have
been ranked separately. This edition also retains the longitudinal perspective of the
first edition, analysing fiscal trends from FY 2014–15 to FY 2023-24. The state analysis
outlines each state’s fiscal strengths, weaknesses, and overall profile, enabling more
meaningful benchmarking and offering tailored insights to support improvements
in their fiscal position.
1 https://unctad.org/publication/world-of-debt
2 Jammu & Kashmir is not included because of its present status as a UT. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 2
Fiscal outcomes across the 18 major states vary, with some states states seeing
moderated FHI scores in 2023-24 compared to 2022-23. Odisha continues to lead
due to controlled deficits and stable revenues. Jharkhand and Gujarat record a slight
gain in ranks despite small score declines, supported by stable debt and revenue
flows. Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, and Rajasthan slip in rank as fiscal indicators
weaken. Maharashtra and Telangana remain broadly stable, while Bihar, Madhya
Pradesh show mixed results constrained by high committed expenditure. Punjab,
Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala face persistent fiscal stress due to rising
debt, sustained deficits, and modest revenue growth.
The NE and Himalayan States show wide variation in fiscal performance. Arunachal
Pradesh leads with strong expenditure quality and prudent debt management,
while Uttarakhand benefits from high own-revenue mobilisation. Tripura performs
well on debt sustainability, whereas Meghalaya, Assam, and others show mixed
outcomes, shaped by varying strengths in expenditure quality, revenue capacity,
and fiscal discipline. Himachal Pradesh and Manipur remain constrained by structural
pressures, including high committed spending and weak revenue mobilisation.
States should prioritise strengthening their fiscal frameworks by improving
revenue mobilisation, primarily through broadening GST bases and enhancing
own-tax capacity, while curbing committed expenditure to restore fiscal flexibility.
Rationalising subsidies, adopting standard expenditure heads, improving the
quality and composition of capital spending, and adopting medium-term fiscal
plans can help contain deficits and stabilise debt trajectories. States with persistent
stress must undertake targeted consolidation measures, including tighter control
of off-budget borrowings and better cash and debt management. Enhanced public
financial management systems, greater transparency using CAG-verified data, and
peer benchmarking through tools like the FHI can support evidence-based decision-
making. Collectively, these steps will improve fiscal resilience, reduce regional
disparities, and strengthen the foundations for long-term, sustainable growth.
The 2023-24 FHI highlights state-specific variations in a national context,
combining methodological rigour with regional relevance. By offering narrative
insights and long-term trend analysis, it sharpens the understanding of India’s fiscal
diversity. Importantly, it underscores that the fiscal health of all states is integral to
macroeconomic stability and long-term resilience. Strengthening fiscal governance
across this spectrum is essential to sustain high-quality growth, reduce regional
disparities, and advance the vision of Viksit Bharat @2047. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 3
Highlights: Major States
• Odisha remains the top performer, improving its score over the previous year,
with Goa and Jharkhand also featuring among the top Achiever states. Gujarat
and Maharashtra continue in the top five, while Haryana records a notable year-
on-year improvement of three ranks. Bihar, Karnataka and Telangana show a
mild recovery, whereas Punjab, West Bengal and Kerala remain at the bottom of
the rankings.
• Overall, higher-ranked states display stronger fiscal discipline and resource
mobilisation efforts, while lower ranked states exhibit higher non-developmental
expenditure and less sustainable fiscal patterns.
• The Achiever group (Odisha, Goa and Jharkhand) is characterised by high own-
tax shares (above 60%), relatively large capital outlay (around 4–5% of GSDP),
low fiscal deficits (below 3% of GSDP), moderate debt levels (under 25% of
GSDP) and contained interest burdens.
• Front-Runner states (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Uttar
Pradesh and Karnataka) and Performer states (Madhya Pradesh, Haryana,
Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan) broadly maintain their positions with minor
reshuffling, though their scores moderate slightly compared to the previous year.
• Aspirational states (West Bengal, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab) face
persistent revenue and fiscal deficits often breaching FRBM norms, elevated
debt levels of roughly 35–45% of GSDP, committed expenditure accounting for
about 50–60% of revenue receipts, large interest payments exceeding 15–20%,
and relatively low developmental spending.
• Most states strengthened on Quality of Expenditure, with Jharkhand and Uttar
Pradesh moving from Front Runner to Achiever, and Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra
Pradesh improving from Performer to Front Runner. Majority of states, retained
their earlier category.
• Goa and Odisha continue to record high State Own Revenue ratios, reflecting
strong tax bases and greater fiscal autonomy. Jharkhand slipped from Front
Runner to Performer, while most other states witnessed only marginal reshuffling
within the same category.
• Bihar improved from Aspirational to Performer, signalling better deficit
management. In contrast, Karnataka and Telangana moved from Front Runner to
Performer, and Kerala and Tamil Nadu slipped further to the Aspirational group,
highlighting emerging fiscal pressures.
• Odisha, Gujarat and Maharashtra maintain low debt levels and contain interest
burdens, supporting fiscal sustainability. Conversely, Punjab, Kerala and West
Bengal continue to face elevated debt and interest commitments, and several
mid-tier states show rising leverage, though many remain within their existing
category bands. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 4
Highlights: NE/Himalayan States
• The North Eastern (NE) /Himalayan States have been ranked separately from the
major states and classified into three groups i.e., Achievers (Arunachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand), Performers (Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Sikkim, Tripura) and
Aspirational (Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland).
• Arunachal Pradesh ranks highest, followed by Uttarakhand and Tripura, reflecting
stronger expenditure quality, revenue capacity and debt management, whereas
Himachal Pradesh and Manipur remain at the bottom due to weak revenues and
persistent fiscal stress.
• Meghalaya and Assam occupy upper middle positions with mixed indicator
performance, while Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim display uneven performance
across different fiscal metrics. Mizoram has low score under debt sustainability,
Sikkim scores low on Fiscal Prudence and Nagaland has lower scores on Quality
of Expenditure and Revenue Mobilisation.
• Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya improved through higher capital outlay and
developmental spending exceeding two-thirds of total expenditure, whereas
Tripura, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur face crowding-out from large salary and
pension commitments.
• Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh exhibit relatively stronger own-revenue
capacity, while Tripura, Nagaland and Manipur have weaker revenue mobilisation
and central transfers form over 80% of revenue.
• Arunachal Pradesh maintains lower deficits and occasional surpluses through
controlled revenue spending, but several states continue to run deficits around
4–5% of GSDP due to rigid expenditure structures.
• Assam, Tripura and Uttarakhand maintain moderate debt burdens, whereas
Manipur and Himachal Pradesh carry high debt levels of roughly 40–50% of
GSDP with rising servicing pressures. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 5
Abbreviations
AE Aggregate Expenditure
AJNIFM Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management
AP Andhra Pradesh
AR Arunachal Pradesh
AS Assam
BFRBM Bihar Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
BH Bihar
CAG Comptroller and Auditor General of India
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CH Chhattisgarh
FD Fiscal Deficit
FHI Fiscal Health Index
FPI Fiscal Performance Index
FRBM Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
FSRI Fiscal Self Reliance and Improvement Index
FY Financial Year
GA Goa
GCS General Category States
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GFD Gross Fiscal Deficit
GFRBM Goa Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
GJ Gujarat
GSDP Gross State Domestic Product
GST Goods and Services Tax
HP Himachal Pradesh
HR Haryana
IP Interest Payments
IPRRI Interest Payments to Revenue Receipts Index
JH Jharkhand
KA Karnataka
KFR Kerala Fiscal Responsibility
KL Kerala
MH Maharashtra
ML Meghalaya
MN Manipur
MP Madhya Pradesh
MTFPS Medium Term Fiscal Policy Statement
MZ Mizoram
NE North Eastern
NL Nagaland FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 6
NSE National Stock Exchange
OD Odisha
PB Punjab
PSUs Public Sector Undertakings
QoE Quality of Expenditure
RBI Reserve Bank of India
RD Revenue Deficit
RJ Rajasthan
RR Revenue Receipts
SGST State Goods and Services Tax
SK Sikkim
SONTR State Own Non-Tax Revenue
SOR State Own Revenue
SSI State of States Index
TN Tamil Nadu
TR Tripura
UK Uttarakhand
UP Uttar Pradesh
UPFRBM Uttar Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
VAT Value-added Tax
WB West Bengal Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 7 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 8
SECTION A
INTRODUCTION Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 9
A. INTRODUCTION
Balanced regional development is vital for India’s economic stability and long-term
growth, especially as the country advances toward the vision of Viksit Bharat@2047
and the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Each state plays
a crucial role in India’s macroeconomic stability and growth by managing public
spending and mobilising revenue effectively. The FHI assesses states on expenditure
quality, revenue mobilisation, fiscal prudence, debt index, and debt sustainability,
offering a comprehensive view of their fiscal performance. By identifying gaps and
highlighting best practices, the Index supports policymakers in strengthening fiscal
governance, promoting sustainable development, and ensuring that progress across
states is both inclusive and resilient.
Over the past decade, global public debt has risen sharply, driven by pandemic-era
fiscal stimulus, climate spending, and geo-economic fragmentation, with persistently
high fiscal deficits of about 5% of global GDP
3
contributing to the upward trend in
debt levels. According to the IMF’s latest Fiscal Monitor, global public debt is on track
to approach 100% of world GDP by the end of the decade, if current trends persist
4
.
The Debt-to-GDP ratios now reflect renewed macroeconomic pressures, heightening
concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability at a time when governments already
face narrowing budgetary space. In the Indian context, state government debt now
accounts for almost one-third of the overall general government debt. The recent
trajectory of state debt, driven by rising subsidies, interest payments, and rising
committed expenditure, has emerged as a key macro–fiscal risk.
The health of state finances has gained significant prominence, as fiscal well-being is
essential for achieving long-term fiscal sustainability and overall economic growth.
States account for two-thirds of public spending and one-third of total revenue. The
Indian Constitution assigns states significant responsibilities in development and
infrastructure, making their fiscal performance central to the nation’s development
and stability. Variations in fiscal performance between states and the centre affect
national fiscal stability, highlighting the importance of maintaining sound fiscal
operations at the state level. Monitoring the fiscal health of states is essential for
ensuring financial stability, sustainable growth, and effective governance. It helps
assess debt sustainability, fiscal deficits, and the efficient allocation of resources to
key sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
The composite index evaluates states on five indicators: quality of expenditure,
revenue mobilisation, fiscal prudence, debt index and debt sustainability. The FHI
provides a systematic approach for measuring state-level fiscal performance. By
incorporating these dimensions, the FHI offers a comprehensive overview of state
finances, providing insights into broader fiscal trends over time and enabling a
better understanding of fiscal health across the country.
While the Index continues to use the same five fiscal pillars for all states, its
indicators have been modified for NE and Himalayan States to reflect the distinct
3 https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2025/09/17/global-debt-remains-above-235-of-world-gdp
4 https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2025/05/29/debt-is-higher-and-rising-faster-in-80-percent-of-global-economy FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 10
structural characteristics. These states are geologically different with dispersed
populations, limited own-revenue capacity, elevated committed expenditures, and
greater reliance on Union transfers. To reflect these structural features, additional
indicators have been included to capture cost-of-service delivery, the composition
of committed spending, the pattern and volatility of devolution grants, and the
revenue-generating capacity of these grants. These states are assessed through
a separate ranking of the 10 NE/Himalayan states. This approach allows for fair
benchmarking and provides clearer, context-specific insights and recommendations
to support their fiscal strengthening.
The inclusion of the North-Eastern and Himalayan states is driven by both national
importance and analytical necessity. Geographically, these states form India’s natural
frontiers, connecting the country with South/South-East Asia. They play a vital role
in regional trade, border security, and strategic connectivity. Environmentally, they
serve as India’s ecological backbone, home to mountain ecosystems, rich biodiversity,
and major river basins that sustain livelihoods and agriculture across the plains.
Fiscal policies in these regions, from forest management to disaster mitigation,
therefore carry implications that extend well beyond state boundaries. Socially
and economically, these states are central to balanced regional development and
national integration. Strengthening their fiscal capacity is essential to improving
social infrastructure, expanding connectivity, and ensuring inclusive growth across
diverse, often remote populations.
At the same time, the fiscal characteristics of these states differ markedly from
those of the larger major States. Their own-tax revenue bases are limited, economic
activity tends to be dispersed and informal, and the cost of public service delivery
is higher due to challenging terrain and lower population density. The inclusion of
the North-Eastern and Himalayan states enhances not only representation but also
the national policy dialogue. Their fiscal performance has direct implications for
India’s strategic and developmental priorities, ranging from climate resilience and
energy security to connectivity under the PM Gati Shakti framework and green
growth. Strengthening fiscal management in these regions can accelerate the
success of initiatives like the National Infrastructure Pipeline, the North East Special
Infrastructure Development Scheme, and the Green Growth Mission. Moreover, the
FHI helps policymakers design targeted interventions, enabling differentiated fiscal
strategies that balance developmental needs with fiscal responsibility. Incorporating
the North-Eastern and Himalayan states into the FHI also reflects India’s commitment
to inclusive and sustainable development. Fiscal stability in these regions reinforces
national resilience across economic, environmental, and strategic dimensions. A
strong fiscal foundation empowers these states to enhance governance, expand
social infrastructure, and leverage central support effectively. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 11 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 12
SECTION B
STUDIES ON STATE
FINANCES:
A BRIEF REVIEW Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 13
B. STUDIES ON STATE FINANCES - A BRIEF REVIEW
To evaluate the fiscal health of Indian states, several studies have been conducted.
Below are some of the most recent and relevant studies on this topic.
A substantial body of existing literature, most notably the works of Mohanty
& Mishra (2016), the CII (2019) discussion paper, and Dholakia (2005), has
been discussed in detail in previous editions of the Fiscal Health Index (2025).
Collectively, these studies establish the broad analytical consensus that assessing
fiscal performance requires moving beyond conventional deficit indicators toward
more comprehensive composite indices. By integrating dimensions such as revenue
mobilisation, expenditure quality, debt sustainability, and overall fiscal prudence,
these frameworks reveal the depth of inter-state fiscal disparities and the structural
pressures shaping state finances. Their findings underscore the importance of
multidimensional evaluation tools for systematically monitoring fiscal discipline and
identifying areas requiring policy attention.
Building on this foundation, the recent analyses by Mundle & Gupta (2024), the
Reserve Bank of India (2024), AJNIFM (2024), NSE (2020), and CareEdge Ratings
(2023), which were also summarised in the previous edition of the Fiscal Health
Index, reinforce and update these insights in the post-pandemic context. These
studies point to buoyant but uneven revenue recovery, a renewed emphasis on
capital outlays, and persisting concerns around rising debt levels and the quality
of expenditure. They also highlight widening developmental differentials across
states, reaffirming the need for a robust and harmonised framework to benchmark
state performance, guide evidence-based policymaking, and support fiscal reforms.
The latest index by AJNIFM for the year 2023-24 was released in 2025. They have
provided a state-wise analysis based on certain fiscal parameters to help identify
gaps in public financial management within individual states.
The CAG’s State Finances 2022-23 (2025) report provides a comprehensive picture
of the fiscal position of India’s 28 States within the federal architecture, covering
their revenue sources, expenditure composition, debt profile and adherence to
fiscal responsibility norms over 10 years from 2013-14 to 2022-23. It details the
relative weight of States’ own tax and non-tax revenues vis-à-vis transfers from the
Union through tax devolution, Finance Commission grants and centrally sponsored
schemes, and analyses significant inter-state disparities in fiscal capacity. On the
expenditure side, it tracks the division between revenue and capital outlays, the
dominance of committed expenditure, and the sectoral distribution across social,
economic and general services. The report further examines borrowing, public
account liabilities, guarantees, and debt-to-GSDP ratios, and evaluates States’ fiscal
and revenue deficits against XV Finance Commission targets. Overall, it presents
a comparative map of state fiscal space, dependence, spending composition, and
debt sustainability. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 14
Fiscal Performance of North Eastern States of India (2014), which examines the
fiscal performance of eight North Eastern (NE) states and fourteen major Indian
states over the period 1991–2010. Using secondary data from the Reserve Bank
of India’s 2010 “Handbook of Statistics on State Government Finances”, the study
constructs a composite North Eastern Fiscal Performance Index (NEFPI) following
the approach outlined by Dholakia (2005). The index is the average of three
component indices: the Deficit Indicator Index (DII), the Own Revenue Effort Index
(OREI), and the Expenditure and Debt Servicing Index (EDSI), each constructed
using normalised indicators based on the observed best and worst values across
states during the post-reform period. State-wise scores were scaled between 0
(worst observed performance) and 100 (best observed performance), ensuring
unidirectional comparability.
Existing studies on state-level fiscal health in India vary widely in scope and
methodological orientation. Some focus on select macro-fiscal dimensions such as
deficits, revenue effort, or debt accumulation. In contrast, others limit their analysis
to a subset of states or combine fiscal indicators with broader socio-economic
variables. The choice of indicators and analytical frameworks also differs considerably
across studies, making comparisons over time or across analyses challenging. Much
of this literature remains primarily descriptive or diagnostic, offering limited insights
into long-term trends or state-specific fiscal dynamics.
This report addresses these gaps by adopting a structured, objective approach
anchored in five core pillars of fiscal health: expenditure quality, revenue mobilisation,
fiscal prudence, debt index, and debt sustainability. Unlike earlier studies, it
undertakes a ten-year longitudinal analysis to trace fiscal trajectories, enabling
a clear view of how states have evolved rather than focusing on a single-year
snapshot. The report further deepens analysis by providing state-specific insights,
using both narrative explanations and graphical representations to highlight each
state’s performance patterns, underlying strengths, and emerging vulnerabilities.
To enhance comparability and policy relevance, the report also classifies and ranks
Major States and NE and Himalayan States separately. This distinction is essential, as
these groups differ significantly in their macroeconomic structures, administrative
capacities, and fiscal environments. Finally, by integrating trend analysis, composite
scoring, and granular state-level diagnostics, the report lays a credible foundation
for a policy framework that can be tailored to each state’s unique needs and support
their long-term fiscal strengthening and development. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 15 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 16
SECTION C
DEFINING
VARIABLES & DATA
INTERPRETATION Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 17
C. DEFINING VARIABLES AND DATA INTERPRETATION
The data used to calculate the Fiscal Health Index (major variables & sub-components
under each variable) is sourced from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
A comprehensive overview of budgetary transactions for all states for the period
2023-24 is utilised for index calculation and subsequent analysis. Additionally, past
analysis for different periods between 2014-15 and 2022-23 has been provided in
the “Appendix” section of the report.
Five Major Sub-Indices are aggregated to form the Fiscal Health Index.
Table 1: Fiscal Parameters for the Sub-Indices for 18 Major states
MAJOR SUB- INDICES MINOR SUB- INDICES
1. Quality of Expenditure
1.1 Total Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure
1.2 Total Capital Outlay/ GSDP*
2. Revenue Mobilisation
2.1 State Own Revenue/ GSDP*
2.2 State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure
3. Fiscal Prudence
3.1 Gross Fiscal Deficit/ GSDP*
3.2 Revenue Deficit/ GSDP*
4. Debt Index
4.1 Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts
4.2 Outstanding Liabilities/ GSDP*
5. Debt Sustainability 5.1 Growth Rate of GSDP* – Growth Rate of Interest Payments
* GSDP at current prices for the year 2023-24
Table 2: Fiscal Parameters for the Sub-Indices for NE/Himalayan States
5
MAJOR SUB- INDICES MINOR SUB- INDICES
1. Quality of Expenditure
1.1 Total Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure
1.2 Total Capital Outlay/ GSDP*
1.3 Committed Expenditure/ Total Expenditure
2. Revenue Mobilisation
2.1 State Own Revenue/ GSDP*
2.2 State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure
2.3 (Devolution + Grants)/ Revenue Receipts
3. Fiscal Prudence
3.1 Gross Fiscal Deficit/ GSDP*
3.2 Revenue Deficit/ GSDP*
5 Committed Expenditure/ Total Expenditure, (Devolution + Grants)/ Revenue Receipts and Interest payment/ State Own Revenue
are additional indicators that have been taken for NE/Himalayan states due to different fiscal and structural characteristics when
compared to the major states. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 18
MAJOR SUB- INDICES MINOR SUB- INDICES
4. Debt Index
4.1 Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts
4.2 Outstanding Liabilities/ GSDP*
4.3 Interest payment/ State Own Revenue
5. Debt Sustainability 5.1 Growth Rate of GSDP* – Growth Rate of Interest Payments
* GSDP at current prices for the year 2023-24
Rationale for adding additional indicators for NE/Himalayan states: Himalayan
states and major states show different fiscal patterns. Himalayan states tend to
raise less of their own revenue and rely more on central support, while also
spending a larger share of their budgets on development and capital projects. This
pushes their overall debt levels higher than those of major states. Major states, in
contrast, have stronger revenue bases, more moderate spending commitments, and
generally maintain healthier debt positions. Overall, these fiscal metrics highlight
how geography and structural constraints shape the fiscal space available to NE/
Himalayan states differently from that of the General Category/ Major States.
Table 3: Trend from 2014–2024 (general profile of Himalayan vs Major states)
IndicatorHimalayan States Major States
Own Tax Revenue (% of GSDP)~6-7%~8%
Developmental Expenditure (% of GSDP) ~22–23%~11–12%
Capital Outlay (% of GSDP)Higher (~7-8%) Moderate (~3%)
Debt-to-GSDP Ratio30–40%+Usually <30%
Dependence on Centre (% of RR)60–90%30–50%
Source: Author’s Calculations
The detailed description of the five major sub-indices and their respective minor
sub-indices is elaborated below.
1. Quality of Expenditure: Quality of Expenditure reflects how effectively a state
deploys its resources, with emphasis on productive spending such as capital
investment, health, education, and infrastructure relative to salaries, pensions,
and interest payments. Higher-quality expenditure indicates better service
delivery, stronger growth potential, and healthier long-term fiscal outcomes.
Developmental expenditure refers to government spending aimed at fostering
long-term economic growth and improving infrastructure or social services, such
as building schools or hospitals.
Non-developmental expenditure involves routine spending necessary to
maintain current government functions and services, such as paying salaries and
covering operational costs.
Committed Expenditure: Committed expenditure refers to the portion of
a state’s budget that is pre-allocated to mandatory or non-discretionary
obligations, such as salaries, pensions, interest payments, and statutory transfers. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 19
These expenditures are mainly unavoidable and fixed in the short term, limiting
the state’s flexibility to allocate funds to new or discretionary developmental
programs and investments.
• Total Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure:  This ratio measures
the proportion of a government’s total spending that is allocated to
developmental activities. This metric is useful for assessing the effectiveness
and priorities of a government’s budgetary policies.
• Total Capital Outlay/Nominal GSDP: This ratio measures how much of the
state’s economic resources are being directed towards capital projects, such
as infrastructure, facilities, and other long-term investments. This assesses
how effectively a state leverages its economic output to achieve long-term
benefits.
• Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure: This ratio indicates the
proportion of a state’s total spending that is pre-obligated toward non-
discretionary items such as salaries, pensions, and interest payments. It
reflects the degree of fiscal flexibility available to the state; higher ratios
suggest limited room for developmental or capital spending, while lower
ratios indicate greater capacity for policy-driven expenditure.
2. Revenue Mobilisation: Revenue Mobilisation captures a state’s capacity to
generate its own tax and non-tax revenues, measured through tax efficiency,
buoyancy, base expansion, and collection practices. Strong revenue mobilisation
reduces dependence on central transfers and borrowing, strengthening fiscal
autonomy and stability.
• State Own Revenue/ Nominal GSDP: This ratio reflects the state’s ability
to generate revenue independently without relying heavily on central
government transfers or grants. It provides insights into a state’s financial
sustainability and its capacity to fund its own developmental and operational
needs.
• State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure: This ratio indicates how much of
the state’s expenditures are covered by its own revenues, reflecting fiscal
independence.
• Devolution and Grants as percentage of Revenue Receipts
6
: This ratio measures
the extent to which a state’s revenue depends on transfers from the central
government, including tax devolution and grants-in-aid. It reflects the state’s
fiscal autonomy. Higher values indicate greater reliance on central transfers,
while lower values suggest stronger internal revenue mobilisation and fiscal self-
sufficiency.
3. Fiscal Prudence: Fiscal Prudence refers to the discipline with which a state
manages its deficits, adheres to fiscal rules, and controls committed expenditures.
States with higher prudence maintain sustainable fiscal deficits, avoid persistent
revenue shortfalls, and adhere to FRBM norms, thereby ensuring balanced and
responsible fiscal management.
6 Reflecting the higher reliance of NE and Himalayan States on central transfers, Appendix Table E1 provides the trend profile of such
dependence over FY2014–15 to FY2023–24. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 20
Fiscal Deficit: Fiscal Deficit occurs when a government’s spending surpasses
its income. It shows the gap between total revenue and total expenditure. This
difference is the amount needed to borrow.
Revenue Deficit: Revenue Deficit occurs when the government’s income receipts
are insufficient to cover its expenditures, necessitating borrowing to fund its
operations.
• Gross Fiscal Deficit/ Nominal GSDP: A higher ratio may signal potential
concerns regarding the sustainability of the state’s debt levels, as it suggests
that the state is borrowing (usually financed by public or foreign entities)
significantly relative to its economic size.
• Revenue Deficit/ Nominal GSDP: A high ratio indicates that the state is
not generating enough revenue to meet its expenditure and is relying on
borrowing (financed by deficit financing) to finance its activities, and has
potential risk to the state budget.
4. Debt Index: The Debt Index assesses the size, composition, and burden of a state’s
outstanding liabilities, including market borrowings and other obligations. A
favourable debt index reflects moderate debt levels, efficient debt composition,
and manageable servicing costs relative to the state’s economic size. 
• Interest Payments/ Revenue Receipt: The ratio of interest payments to
Revenue Receipts (IP/RR) indicates the percentage of Revenue Receipts
used for interest payment on account of outstanding debt. It indicates how
much of the state’s interest payments are financed by Revenue Receipts and
represents the state’s debt servicing position. A high IPRRI indicates that the
state is spending a significant share of its revenue on debt service, which can
signal impending financial stress.
• Outstanding Liabilities/Nominal GSDP: This ratio indicates how much of the
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) is taken up by debt stock. It reflects the
state’s debt burden. A high ratio indicates that the state is heavily indebted.
• Interest payment/ State Own Revenue: This ratio assesses the burden of
interest obligations relative to the state’s internally generated revenues,
such as taxes and non-tax receipts. It indicates the extent to which a state’s
own fiscal capacity is constrained by debt servicing. Higher ratios suggest
reduced fiscal space for developmental spending, while lower ratios reflect
healthier debt management and stronger revenue capacity.
5. Debt Sustainability: Debt Sustainability evaluates a state’s long-term ability to
service debt without creating fiscal stress, based on indicators such as interest
payments relative to revenues, primary balance trends, and projected debt
dynamics. Sustainable debt implies that growth and revenues are sufficient to
meet obligations without constraining essential expenditure.
• Growth Rate of GSDP – Growth Rate of Interest Payments: A higher value
suggests that the state’s economy is growing faster than its debt obligations,
indicating fiscal sustainability and greater spending capacity. Conversely, a lower
or negative value implies that interest payments are consuming a larger share
of resources relative to economic growth, potentially constraining fiscal space. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 21 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 22
SECTION D
METHODOLOGY Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 23
D. METHODOLOGY
7
The FHI has been calculated for 18 major states and 10 North Eastern (NE)/
Himalayan States for FY 2023-24 using data from the CAG. The study identified
five major sub-indices for evaluation: Quality of Expenditure, Revenue Mobilisation,
Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index, and Debt Sustainability. Further, minor sub-indices
were developed under each major sub-index, based on specific fiscal metrics. The
study differentiates between Improvement Indices, where higher values indicate
better performance, and Deprivation Indices, where lower values signify better
performance. The final rank was computed by taking the arithmetic mean of the
major sub-indices, with each major sub-index calculated as the mean of its respective
minor sub-indices. The detailed explanation of the variables has been provided in
the preceding section. The steps taken are as follows:
• Determination of the type of sub-index:
o Improvement index: The Improvement Index is a favourable index in which
higher values of the variable are rewarded. The Improvement Index is
constructed so that the higher the ratio for a state, the higher its index value.
Improvement Index for a state i =
where Xi is the minor sub-index under each major sub-index.
The target value was set to the highest value (among all states in each year)
observed over the past 10 years.
o Deprivation Index: Deprivation Index is a deteriorating index in which lower
values of the variable are rewarded. The Deprivation Index is constructed
in such a way that the lower the ratio for a state, the higher the index value
assigned to it.
Deprivation Index for a state i = ,
where Xi is the minor sub-index under each major sub-index.
The target value was set to the lowest value (of the minimum of all the states
in each year) observed over the past 10 years.
• Computed major sub-indices by using the arithmetic mean of minor sub-indices.
• Computed the final index by using the arithmetic mean of major sub-indices
7 To maintain comparability, the 18 major states have been assessed using the same methodology adopted in the previous edition
(FY2022-23) FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 24
Table 4: Classification of Sub-Indices under Improvement and Deprivation Categories
Improvement IndexDeprivation Index
Total Developmental Expenditure / Total
Expenditure
Committed Expenditure / Total Expenditure
(NE/Himalayan only)
Total Capital Outlay / GSDP
(Devolution + Grants) / Revenue Receipts
(NE/Himalayan only)
State Own Revenue / GSDP
Interest Payments / State Own Revenue (NE/
Himalayan only)
State Own Revenue / Total Expenditure Gross Fiscal Deficit / GSDP
Growth Rate of GSDP – Growth Rate of Interest
Payments
Revenue Deficit / GSDP
Interest Payments / Revenue Receipts
Outstanding Liabilities / GSDP
The FHI scores for 2023-24 are comparable with previous year. The target values taken for normalization
are same over the two years for all indicators except for one, where there is marginal difference.
Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 25 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 26
SECTION E
RESULTS Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 27
E.I. RESULTS: MAJOR STATES
E.I.1. Table 5: Final Ranking of States for 2023-24
States FHI Score
Rank
2023-24
Quality of
Expenditure
Revenue
Mobilisation
Fiscal
Prudence
Debt
Index
Debt
Sustainability
Odisha 73.1 1 71.2 80.3 58.7 95.8 59.5
Goa54.7 2 49.5 80.4 45.0 56.8 41.9
Jharkhand 50.5 3 66.3 37.6 54.4 67.9 26.3
Gujarat 49.9 4 48.7 44.8 51.5 74.2 30.2
Maharashtra 45.0 5 36.9 52.7 35.2 76.0 24.3
Chhattisgarh 44.3 6 60.8 48.4 8.4 72.5 31.5
Telangana 44.3 7 57.1 60.8 30.0 53.5 20.0
Uttar
Pradesh
41.9 8 50.9 28.1 38.8 60.2 31.7
Karnataka 41.7 9 46.8 43.2 33.1 61.4 24.1
Madhya
Pradesh
37.8 10 60.8 32.0 35.1 58.9 2.2
Haryana 34.5 11 35.8 48.0 27.3 32.8 28.7
Bihar 30.9 12 58.3 2.9 27.4 48.0 17.8
Tamil Nadu 29.8 13 30.5 39.8 21.5 39.1 18.2
Rajasthan 27.6 14 43.7 29.4 11.3 32.1 21.5
Kerala 24.8 15 4.1 47.8 24.0 23.3 24.8
West Bengal 23.8 16 37.4 12.9 22.7 20.1 25.6
Andhra
Pradesh
23.1 17 43.1 21.7 9.9 36.6 4.2
Punjab 12.4 18 8.1 29.8 5.9 2.1 15.9
Source: Author’s Calculations
Findings:
• Odisha remains the strongest performer with an overall score of 73.1,
demonstrating fiscal robustness through prudent deficit control, high-quality
expenditure, and strong revenue mobilisation. Its exemplary debt management
practices and low default risk have translated into sustained fiscal stability and
continued top rankings.
• Goa and Jharkhand follow with scores of 54.7 and 50.5. Goa’s fiscal strength
stems from high reliance on its own revenue and controlled debt levels, while
Jharkhand’s balanced expenditure profile and improving fiscal prudence reflect
steady institutional progress in financial management. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 28
• States such as Gujarat, Maharashtra and Telangana maintain moderate fiscal
strength with stable own-revenue bases and prudent debt levels. Gujarat’s high
capital outlay and low refinancing risks underline long-term sustainability while
Chhattisgarh’s improved tax buoyancy and infrastructure investment point to
fiscal maturity.
• Bihar and Madhya Pradesh exhibit mixed performance characterised by
adequate developmental spending but constrained fiscal flexibility due to high
committed expenditure and a low revenue base. Strengthening tax compliance
and diversifying income streams are essential for improving their fiscal resilience.
Rajasthan also shows mixed performance with relatively better performance in
the Quality of Expenditure than other indices.
• Haryana and Tamil Nadu show weak performance in Quality of Expenditure
due to low developmental spending. They, however, perform well in Revenue
Mobilisation. Rationalising subsidies and reprioritising developmental spending
are essential for improving their fiscal resilience.
• Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala remain fiscally stressed with
low scores, reflecting persistent deficits, rising debt burdens, and limited revenue
capacity. High expenditure rigidity, particularly in Punjab and Andhra Pradesh,
and weak debt sustainability in these states highlight the need for targeted fiscal
reforms, improved debt management, and better-quality spending to restore
fiscal balance. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 29
State-wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorisation is provided in the Appendix
Major States: State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Achiever Front Runner Performer Aspirational
Odisha (1) Gujarat (4) Madhya Pradesh (10) Kerala (15)
Goa (2) Maharashtra (5) Haryana (11) West Bengal (16)
Jharkhand (3) Chhattisgarh (6) Bihar (12) Andhra Pradesh (17)
Telangana (7) Tamil Nadu (13) Punjab (18)
Uttar Pradesh (8) Rajasthan (14)
Karnataka (9)
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 30
E.I.2. Table 6: FHI Rank and Score performance in 2023-24 vs 2022-23
Source: Author’s Calculations
• Over the previous year, the FHI for 2023–24 highlights distinct shifts in state-
level fiscal positions, reflecting both consolidation and emerging pressures.
• Odisha has maintained its top rank, further strengthening its score to 73.1 from
67.4, supported by prudent fiscal management, high-quality expenditure, and a
strong debt profile.
• Haryana showed improvement in rankings, driven by better revenue mobilisation
and improved expenditure control, signalling gradual fiscal stabilisation. Gujarat
and Maharashtra are among the top five performing states.
• Bihar’s marginal recovery reflects improved quality of expenditure and revenue
surplus. In contrast, states like West Bengal and Punjab continue to struggle at
the bottom, constrained by widening deficits, high debt burdens, and persistent
expenditure rigidity.
• Overall, year-on-year movements indicate that while stronger states consolidated
gains through fiscal discipline and diversification of revenue sources, weaker
states remain weighed down by higher deficits and weaker revenue mobilisation. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 31
E.I.3. Table 7: FHI Rank & Score performance
8
: Trends Across Periods (2014–15 to 2023–24)
Period 2023-24
2020-21 to
2022-23
2017-18 to
2019-20
2014-15 to
2016-17
States
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
Odisha 73.1 1 66.4 1 47.8 1 51.8 2
Goa 54.7 2 38.2 6 41.3 5 52.6 1
Jharkhand 50.5 3 41.6 3 37.1 9 36.8 13
Gujarat 49.9 4 39.7 5 40.4 6 46.1 6
Maharashtra 45.0 5 41.0 4 46.2 2 37.7 12
Chhattisgarh 44.3 6 44.5 2 36.5 10 49.2 4
Telangana 44.3 7 34.8 9 40.1 7 45.0 7
Uttar Pradesh 41.9 8 36.3 7 43.2 3 40.5 8
Karnataka 41.7 9 35.5 8 42.9 4 50.7 3
Madhya
Pradesh
37.8 10 33.5 10 38.2 8 48.2 5
Haryana 34.5 11 22.6 13 28.4 13 31.9 14
Bihar 30.9 12 23.1 11 34.8 11 38.6 10
Tamil Nadu 29.8 13 23.0 12 31.5 12 40.5 9
Rajasthan 27.6 14 22.2 14 27.2 14 29.0 16
Kerala 24.8 15 17.4 16 23.0 16 30.8 15
West Bengal 23.8 16 15.5 17 22.4 17 22.0 17
Andhra
Pradesh
23.1 17 20.7 15 26.5 15 37.9 11
Punjab 12.4 18 7.8 18 14.3 18 19.9 18
Fiscal performance across the 18 major states shows phases of improvement,
stagnation, and stress over the decade. Odisha has emerged as a consistent
performer, strengthening its position across all periods. In contrast, Punjab, West
Bengal, and Kerala continue to face persistent structural challenges, marked by weak
fiscal prudence and sustained debt pressures. Mid-ranking states such as Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh show mixed but stable performance.
Overall, the decadal trends indicate a gradual divergence: states with stronger
revenue capacity and more disciplined expenditure management have continued
to improve, while those facing structural revenue constraints and fiscal rigidities
have experienced fiscal pressures. Enhancing fiscal discipline, boosting own-
revenue mobilisation, and improving expenditure quality remain central to reducing
medium-term fiscal risks.
8 The Average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-20, and 2020-21 to 2022-23 has been calculated by taking the average
of the values for minor sub-indices across all years within each period. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 32
E.I.4 Graph 1: Comparative Ranking of States for 2023-24, Average for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-2020 & 2020-21 to 2022-23Source: Author’s calculation
Note: The Average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-20, and 2020-21 to 2022-23 has been calculated by taking the average of the values for minor
sub-indices across all years within each period, using the same methodology as stated above in the Methodology section. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 33
State-wise Quality of Expenditure Score Heatmap
Achiever Front Runner Performer Aspirational
Odisha (1) Goa (8) West Bengal (13) Punjab (17)
Jharkhand (2) Gujarat (9) Maharashtra (14) Kerala (18)
Madhya Pradesh (3) Karnataka (10) Haryana (15)
Chhattisgarh (4) Rajasthan (11) Tamil Nadu (16)
Bihar (5) Andhra Pradesh (12)
Telangana (6)
Uttar Pradesh (7)
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 34
E.I.5 Table 8: Quality of Expenditure- Trend over last 10 years
States 2023-24 2022-23
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to2019-20
Avg 2014-15 to
2016-17
Odisha71.2 52.0 51.5 62.4 67.1
Jharkhand 66.3 47.3 42.2 44.8 53.4
Madhya
Pradesh60.8 59.7 56.6 48.2 59.0
Chhattisgarh 60.8 55.1 50.4 45.6 62.6
Bihar58.3 56.1 49.9 58.5 62.7
Telangana 57.1 36.9 39.4 42.0 55.3
Uttar Pradesh 50.9 45.8 39.4 35.9 55.5
Goa49.5 45.5 41.3 38.5 43.5
Gujarat48.7 40.0 36.4 37.0 42.9
Karnataka 46.8 47.4 47.6 52.3 52.0
Rajasthan 43.7 38.3 37.0 40.4 49.5
Andhra
Pradesh43.1 31.4 30.3 36.8 49.4
West Bengal 37.4 32.3 25.6 30.3 24.2
Maharashtra 36.9 37.1 30.9 31.4 31.1
Haryana35.8 24.8 22.3 36.5 33.9
Tamil Nadu 30.5 32.0 32.6 25.1 33.6
Punjab8.1 4.7 0.0 2.3 0.0
Kerala4.1 4.2 8.0 11.1 9.1
Source: Author’s Calculations
Trends and Structural Insights: Ten-year trend indicates, that the states that sustained
a strong developmental focus and expanded capital investment have improved on
Quality of Expenditure, whereas fiscally rigid or consumption-oriented states have
experienced a persistent decline.
Between 2022–23 and 2023–24, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha
retained their ‘Achiever’ status, while Jharkhand, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh moved
into the Achiever category. Karnataka and Goa continued to remain in the ‘Front Runner’
group, and Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh advanced from the ‘Performer’ to
the ‘Front Runner’ category. All other states maintained their previous classifications.
• Achievers (Odisha, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Telangana,
and Uttar Pradesh)
Odisha’s QoE score rose from 67 in 2014–15 to over 71 in 2023–24, anchored
in its consistent increase in capital outlay to GSDP ratio (3–4%) and strong
developmental expenditure share (around 77–80%). Similarly, Madhya Pradesh
and Chhattisgarh improved their scores through a decisive rise in capital
investment, particularly in infrastructure and irrigation, while keeping social
expenditure growth aligned with revenue capacity. Jharkhand and Bihar reflect
steady structural strengthening, both with capital outlay-to-GSDP ratios around
4-5%, higher than most major states, and improving expenditure quality despite
modest fiscal space. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 35
• Front Runners (Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh)
Their scores have remained broadly stable over time, averaging between
45–55, with developmental expenditure ratios near 70–73%. However, limited
acceleration in capital outlay (mostly 1.5–3% of GSDP) has constrained further
gains. Gujarat and Karnataka maintain fiscal discipline and sectoral diversification
and show a slight year-on-year improvement in expenditure quality. Rajasthan
and Andhra Pradesh improved marginally in recent years, aided by post-COVID
capital push and welfare-linked spending, but continue to face revenue pressures
that may have capped long-term quality enhancement.
• Performers (West Bengal, Maharashtra, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu)
QoE scores have stagnated or marginally increased compared to the 2014–17
baseline. Despite moderate developmental expenditure ratios (65–70%), capital
outlay remains below 2% of GSDP, restricting asset creation. For instance,
Maharashtra’s score has hovered between 30–37 over the decade and has
improved in recent years, with committed expenditure declining and capital
outlay increasing.
• Aspirational (Punjab and Kerala)
Their QoE scores have remained below 10, with a declining trend overall. Both
states spend heavily on salaries, pensions, and interest payments, leading to very
low capital outlay-to-GSDP ratios (<1%) and developmental shares below 60%.
Consequently, their fiscal structures leave little room for productive expenditure
or asset formation, reinforcing a cycle of weak fiscal sustainability. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 36
State-wise Revenue Mobilisation Score Heatmap
Achiever Front Runner Performer Aspirational
Goa (1) Maharashtra(4) Gujarat (8) Andhra Pradesh (16)
Odisha (2) Chhattisgarh (5) Karnataka (9) West Bengal (17)
Telangana (3) Haryana (6) Tamil Nadu (10) Bihar (18)
Kerala (7) Jharkhand (11)
Madhya Pradesh (12)
Punjab (13)
Rajasthan (14)
Uttar Pradesh (15)
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 37
E.I.6. Table 9: Revenue Mobilisation- Trend over last 10 years
States2023-24 2022-23
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to2019-20
Avg 2014-15
to 2016-17
Goa80.4 87.1 71.5 66.5 82.0
Odisha80.3 69.9 74.7 36.7 36.6
Telangana60.8 75.2 59.7 54.1 50.7
Maharashtra 52.7 59.1 52.4 59.6 50.8
Chhattisgarh 48.4 56.5 48.6 37.4 45.0
Haryana48.0 47.8 41.7 40.9 42.3
Kerala47.8 54.2 40.1 41.7 50.2
Gujarat44.8 48.7 36.1 39.4 47.8
Karnataka43.2 43.9 37.5 39.5 50.0
Tamil Nadu 39.8 41.2 34.5 43.2 49.9
Jharkhand37.6 45.7 38.3 27.0 25.7
Madhya Pradesh 32.0 27.6 24.9 25.6 40.6
Punjab29.8 28.1 25.6 35.5 46.9
Rajasthan29.4 35.4 31.2 31.7 32.4
Uttar Pradesh 28.1 34.6 33.1 52.6 38.4
Andhra Pradesh 21.7 22.1 22.0 25.7 32.3
West Bengal 12.9 12.4 11.3 13.3 10.7
Bihar2.9 5.3 4.4 1.9 6.8
Source: Author’s Calculations
Trends and Structural Insights: The fiscal capacity of Indian states, reflected
through Revenue Mobilisation, has evolved unevenly over the past decade. The ten-
year trend reveals widening gaps: states that strengthened their internal revenue
base and aligned spending with own-resource capacity have sustained strong
scores, while others continue to face structural fiscal limitations. Between 2022-23
and 2023-24, Goa, Odisha, and Telangana retained their ‘Achiever’ status with some
reshuffling among middle-ranked states.
• Achievers (Goa, Odisha and Telangana)
Goa’s score has remained high throughout (82.0 in 2014–17, 87.1 in 2022–23, and
80.4 in 2023–24), anchored in its strong State Own Revenue to Expenditure
ratio (63% in 2023–24) and a high SOR to GSDP ratio (12%). This reflects a
structurally sound fiscal position supported by effective tax administration
and tourism-linked revenues. Odisha’s revenue strength has risen sharply from
around 37 in 2014–17 to over 80 in 2023–24. The improvement is underpinned
by a steady increase in sustained revenue-financing capacity, driven
largely by buoyant mining receipts and enhanced compliance. These states
exemplify fiscal resilience and self-reliance, with own revenues financing a major
share of total expenditure. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 38
• Front Runners (Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, and Kerala)
Maharashtra continues to perform strongly with a score of around 52.7 in
2023–24, maintaining one of the highest SOR to Expenditure ratios (62%). Haryana
and Kerala have similarly sustained high ratios (61% and 57% respectively).
Chhattisgarh maintains a solid position, reflecting the benefit of resource-linked
revenues. These states display fiscal maturity and administrative efficiency but
have reached a point of relative stability.
• Performers (Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh)
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu continue to maintain disciplined fiscal management,
though their SOR to GSDP ratios have largely remained around 7%, suggesting
limited buoyancy in tax expansion. Rajasthan and Punjab show weaker
performance, constrained by high committed expenditure and slow revenue
growth. Jharkhand’s revenue position has strengthened in recent years, with the
score rising to 37.6 in 2023–24 as compared to 2014-17, reflecting gains from
mining-linked receipts and improved compliance mechanisms, but the overall
score is lower compared to the previous year. Overall, these states demonstrate
fiscal consolidation but require structural reforms to sustain and deepen their
own-revenue generation.
• Aspirational (Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar)
Bihar’s score has fallen from 6.8 in 2014–17 to just 2.9 in 2023–24, reflecting a
persistently low SOR to GSDP ratio and limited fiscal autonomy. Andhra Pradesh’s
score has also declined sharply from 32.3 to 21.7 over the same period, indicating
rising expenditure pressures unaccompanied by matching revenue growth. West
Bengal’s performance has stagnated, with SOR to GSDP and SOR to Expenditure
ratios remaining around 6% and 34-36%, respectively, indicating slow revenue
growth and a heavy dependence on central transfers. These states continue to
face structural constraints in tax administration and economic diversification,
limiting their ability to build sustainable fiscal strength. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 39
State-wise Fiscal Prudence Score Heatmap
Achiever Front Runner Performer Aspirational
Odisha (1)Goa(4) Uttar Pradesh (5) Kerala (12)
Jharkhand (2)Maharashtra (6) West Bengal (13)
Gujarat (3)Madhya Pradesh (7) Tamil Nadu (14)
Karnataka (8) Rajasthan (15)
Telangana (9) Andhra Pradesh (16)
Bihar (10) Chhattisgarh (17)
Haryana (11) Punjab (18)
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 40
E.I.7. Table 10: Fiscal Prudence- Trend over last 10 years
States 2023-24 2022-23
Avg 2020-21 to
2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to2019-20
Avg 2014-15 to
2016-17
Odisha58.7 54.0 66.5 38.3 51.0
Jharkhand 54.4 62.4 44.8 29.3 30.4
Gujarat 51.5 52.7 40.8 35.5 40.7
Goa45.0 59.4 32.3 29.6 41.2
Uttar Pradesh 38.8 44.7 38.5 50.3 34.9
Maharashtra 35.2 41.8 32.4 36.0 36.7
Madhya
Pradesh
35.1 35.6 23.3 25.4 36.7
Karnataka 33.1 43.9 28.4 29.3 37.4
Telangana 30.0 40.8 21.6 22.5 29.4
Bihar27.4 11.5 11.3 33.5 45.5
Haryana 27.3 26.1 14.8 11.4 9.1
Kerala24.0 34.0 11.0 10.5 15.3
West Bengal 22.7 25.4 15.0 17.6 21.4
Tamil Nadu 21.5 25.8 11.4 15.3 29.0
Rajasthan 11.3 19.9 6.7 4.3 7.2
Andhra
Pradesh
9.9 13.3 11.7 4.7 14.2
Chhattisgarh 7.4 56.0 38.3 18.2 40.1
Punjab5.9 5.6 3.3 11.6 2.3
Trends and Structural Insights: The Fiscal Prudence pillar capturing states’ ability
to manage deficits, align borrowing with productive use, and ensure adherence
to fiscal responsibility norms, has shown pronounced divergence over the last
decade. The 10-year trend reveals that while a few states have institutionalised fiscal
discipline and have steadily improved their prudence scores by containing revenue
deficits, others continue to face persistent imbalances driven by welfare pressures,
weak revenue bases, and rising committed expenditure.
Between 2022–23 and 2023–24, Odisha, Jharkhand and Gujarat remained the only
states sustaining top-tier Fiscal Prudence, while no new state moved into the highest
prudence bracket.
• Achievers (Odisha, Jharkhand, and Gujarat)
Odisha’s score rose from an average of 51.0 in 2014–17 to 58.7 in 2023–24,
underpinned by a decade-long record of revenue surpluses, GFD was maintained
near 3% of GSDP, and debt remained below FRBM thresholds. Jharkhand’s stable
revenue balance and low fiscal deficit (below 3.5% of GSDP) have sustained its
top-tier ranking. Gujarat mirrors this trend, improving from 35.5 (2017–20) to 51.5
(2023–24) through strong revenue growth, tight deficit control, and declining
interest burdens. These states demonstrate that disciplined fiscal management
anchored in buoyant own revenues, efficient expenditure, and adherence to
FRBM norms translates into durable fiscal resilience. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 41
• Front Runner (Goa)
Goa represents a moderate but steady performer, maintaining fiscal deficit within
2–3% of GSDP and achieving consistent revenue surpluses through robust own-
tax revenue (71% of total receipts). However, in recent years, fiscal prudence has
softened slightly due to rising expenditure rigidity and slower revenue growth.
• Performers (Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka,
Telangana, Bihar, and Haryana)
Maharashtra’s fiscal deficit, contained mainly within 3–3.5% of GSDP, reflects
adherence to targets, yet growing subsidies and stagnant revenue surplus have
capped its improvement. Madhya Pradesh and Telangana have improved their
prudence scores since 2017–20, supported by better capital management and
buoyant tax revenues. Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, though not in the top bracket,
display comparable trends of gradual consolidation, successfully reducing deficits
post-pandemic, but constrained by rising welfare and committed spending.
Bihar achieved a revenue surplus in 2023–24 after several deficit years, though
its reliance on Union transfers and volatile deficits indicates structural fragility.
Haryana posts deficits within statutory limits, but its rising subsidy bill (10% of
revenue receipts) underscores expenditure pressure.
• Aspirational (Kerala, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, and Punjab)
These states remain fiscally constrained with high and often widening deficits.
Punjab and Kerala are at the bottom, with revenue deficits of 4–5% of GSDP and
interest payments exceeding 20–25% of revenue receipts, reflecting unsustainable
fiscal structures. Andhra Pradesh’s fiscal deficit of 4.3% of GSDP and continuous
revenue shortfall signal deviation from FRBM norms. Tamil Nadu, despite
high GSDP growth, has not consolidated its deficit position due to extensive
welfare spending and salary commitments. Chhattisgarh, though with improved
performance in the Revenue Mobilisation and Quality of Expenditure, has seen
a decline in the fiscal prudence score (from 56.0 in 2022–23 to 7.4 in 2023–24)
owing to welfare-induced fiscal spending. The group shares a typical pattern of
rising committed expenditure and limited corrective policy bandwidth, making
fiscal consolidation challenging. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 42
State-wise Debt Index Score Heatmap
Achiever Front Runner Performer Aspirational
Odisha (1) Karnataka (6) Tamil Nadu (12) Kerala (16)
Maharashtra (2) Uttar Pradesh (7) Andhra Pradesh (13) West Bengal (17)
Gujarat (3) Madhya Pradesh (8) Haryana (14) Punjab (18)
Chhattisgarh (4) Goa (9) Rajasthan (15)
Jharkhand (5) Telangana (10)
Bihar (11)
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 43
E.I.8. Table 11: Debt Index- Trend over last 10 years
States 2023-24 2022-23
Avg 2020-21 to
2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to 2019-20
Avg 2014-15 to
2016-17
Odisha 95.8 97.1 90.4 78.9 90.4
Maharashtra 76.0 75.1 71.1 73.9 42.1
Gujarat 74.2 68.0 62.2 65.7 69.6
Chhattisgarh 72.5 78.0 73.5 81.3 94.3
Jharkhand 67.9 65.4 59.2 61.5 70.5
Karnataka 61.4 61.1 61.3 78.0 86.5
Uttar Pradesh 60.2 58.6 54.3 55.7 57.5
Madhya
Pradesh
58.9 59.7 59.0 70.2 75.7
Goa56.8 49.7 45.1 55.9 60.7
Telangana 53.5 52.3 49.8 63.4 83.7
Bihar48.0 45.8 45.8 55.8 59.6
Tamil Nadu 39.1 35.7 36.7 54.4 76.5
Andhra
Pradesh
36.6 37.1 39.0 49.1 60.5
Haryana 32.8 24.1 23.8 40.3 62.4
Rajasthan 32.1 31.6 30.4 36.9 56.0
Kerala 23.3 22.7 21.8 36.3 54.5
West Bengal 20.1 18.1 16.7 23.2 27.5
Punjab2.1 0.0 0.00.0 31.0
Source: Author’s Calculations
Trends and Structural Insights: The Debt Index presents a clear long-term picture
of debt sustainability across India’s major states. The trend over the past decade
demonstrates widening divergence: states that kept interest burdens below 10%
and maintained liabilities within manageable ranges strengthened their scores,
while those experiencing growing committed expenditure and revenue rigidity saw
sustained deterioration.
Most of the states retained their status from the previous year. No state entered
the top tier this year, and most of the reshuffling occurred within the bands,
indicating that debt sustainability is increasingly challenging even for traditionally
stronger states.
• Achievers (Odisha, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand)
Odisha continues to lead, with its Debt Index rising to 95.8 in 2023–24, reflecting
one of the lowest interest burdens (about 6% of revenue receipts) and liabilities
around just 18% of GSDP. Gujarat also maintains a strong profile, with liabilities
falling from 19.5 to 14.3% of GSDP since 2019–20 and interest payments staying
near 13–14%. Maharashtra’s diversified revenues keep its interest burden at
roughly 10%, while Chhattisgarh has reduced its interest-payment ratio from 7.8
to 6.6% over five years. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 44
• Front Runners (Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Telangana
and Bihar)
Uttar Pradesh has gradually reduced its debt ratio to around 29% in 2023–
24, but its interest payments have remained elevated at about 11% for
several years, indicating limited improvement relative to its 2015–17 baseline.
Bihar’s liabilities have edged up from 36.6% in 2015–17 to 38.9% in 2023–24,
with its interest-payment ratio rising toward 10%. Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka
mirror this pattern: over the decade, both have seen interest burdens settle into the
12–13% range. Goa’s liabilities have risen steadily from 22.6% of GSDP in
2015–17 to 26.3% in 2022–23 and 29.3% in 2023–24, while its interest burden
doubled from about 6% to over 10%. Telangana, too, has moved from a relatively
moderate debt position earlier in the decade to rising liabilities and interest
payouts post-COVID.
• Performers (Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan)
Tamil Nadu has seen its liabilities remain above 30% of GSDP for much of the
past decade, with interest payments climbing toward 14% of revenue receipts,
reflecting steadily rising committed expenditure. Andhra Pradesh’s fiscal
position has weakened sharply, with outstanding liabilities increasing by over
60% between 2019–20 and 2023–24 and fiscal deficits remaining well above
FRBM thresholds. Haryana’s interest burden is at ~16% of revenue receipts, while
Rajasthan has continued to accumulate liabilities through recurring high deficits.
• Aspirational (Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab)
Punjab’s liabilities have climbed steadily over the decade to exceed 48% of GSDP,
while its interest burden remains above 20%, resulting in a very low Debt Index
score in 2023–24. Kerala exhibits similar rigidity: its liabilities have persisted
above 37% of GSDP for several years, and interest payments now absorb around
22% of revenue receipts. In both states, the long-standing dominance of salaries,
pensions and welfare commitments has curtailed any meaningful correction in
their debt trajectories. West Bengal faces the most severe interest-payment
stress in this group, consistently spending more than 20% of its revenue receipts
on servicing debt, a burden that has only worsened since the mid-2010s. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 45
E.I.9. Composite FHI Score Relationship with Sub Indicators for 2023-249
Graph G1 in appendix illustrates the relationship between the FHI score and the
sub-indices under Quality of Expenditure (Total Developmental Expenditure/Total
Expenditure, Capital Outlay/Nominal GSDP, and Committed Expenditure/Total
Expenditure). High FHI scores in states such as Odisha, Jharkhand, and Gujarat are
strongly supported by high levels of development and capital spending. Odisha’s
developmental expenditure share and consistent high capital outlay place it among
the top performers, while Jharkhand’s capital outlay-to-GSDP ratio remains above
the national average.
Graph G2 in appendix shows the relationship between the FHI score and sub-indices
under Revenue Mobilisation (State Own Revenue/Total Expenditure, State Own
Revenue/Nominal GSDP, and Devolution & Grants/Total Receipts). Strong revenue
mobilisation has also contributed to high FHI scores in Goa and Odisha. Goa’s own
resources accounted for nearly 71% of total revenue receipts. Odisha’s buoyant GST
and tax collections further strengthened its revenue base. In contrast, Bihar and
Andhra Pradesh recorded lower own-revenue ratios and greater dependence on
Union transfers, thereby lowering their Revenue Mobilisation index values.
Graph G3 in appendix highlights the relationship between the FHI score and sub-
indices under Fiscal Prudence (Gross Fiscal Deficit/Nominal GSDP and Revenue
Deficit/Nominal GSDP). Odisha’s high score, reflecting consistent revenue surpluses,
has contributed to its top FHI score. Similarly, Gujarat and Jharkhand maintained
low fiscal deficits relative to GSDP, supporting their fiscal consolidation path.
Maharashtra also displayed sound fiscal prudence by containing deficits within
FRBM limits while maintaining revenue growth. On the other hand, states such as
Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan continue to post high deficits, indicating
persistent fiscal pressures and limited compliance with targets.
Graph G4 in appendix examines the relationship between the FHI score and sub-
indices under the Debt Index (Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts and Outstanding
Liabilities/Nominal GSDP). Gujarat and Maharashtra maintained prudent debt levels,
with low interest payment ratios and stable debt-to-GSDP positions, reflecting
sound fiscal management. Conversely, Punjab, Kerala, and West Bengal have high
debt burdens and rising interest obligations, which have constrained their fiscal
flexibility and contributed to low overall FHI scores. In some cases, the high FHI
score is due to other sub-indices considered in this analysis.
Differences in overall FHI scores often reflect the combined influence of multiple
sub-indices rather than the strength of any single indicator. For instance, although
Maharashtra trails Madhya Pradesh on expenditure quality, its stronger revenue
performance, lower fiscal deficits, and better debt management raise its overall
score. Similarly, Jharkhand ranks above Haryana despite weaker revenue mobilisation
because it performs better on expenditure quality and debt indicators. In another
case, Maharashtra surpasses Uttar Pradesh even though UP scores higher on fiscal
prudence, underscoring how broader strengths across the different pillars are
shaping the final FHI outcome.
9 Refer Graph 2, Graph 3, Graph 4 and Graph 5 in the Appendix FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 46
NE/ Himalayan States: State-wise FHI Composite
Score Heatmap
State-wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorisation, for the main index and the
sub-indices, is provided in the Appendix
AchieverPerformerAspirational
Arunachal Pradesh (1)Tripura (3)Nagaland (8)
Uttarakhand (2)Meghalaya (4) Himachal Pradesh (9)
Assam (5)Manipur (10)
Mizoram (6)
Sikkim (7)
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 47
E.II RESULTS: NE/ HIMALAYAN STATES
E.II.1 Table 12: Final Ranking of States for 2023-24
States
FHI
Score
Rank
2023-
24
Quality of
Expenditure
Revenue
Mobilisation
Fiscal
Prudence
Debt
Index
Debt
Sustain-
ability
Arunachal
Pradesh
59.5 1 97.6 40.6 59.0 62.0 38.3
Uttarakhand 52.5 2 28.2 83.3 26.6 66.5 58.1
Tripura 44.1 3 24.6 23.5 38.5 66.2 67.7
Meghalaya 41.5 4 66.6 38.2 12.8 57.8 31.9
Assam 39.1 5 30.9 58.3 16.4 69.2 20.4
Mizoram 33.4 6 28.9 37.8 29.9 69.1 1.4
Sikkim 32.5 7 27.3 44.8 10.8 56.5 23.3
Nagaland 27.1 8 15.8 20.8 21.7 41.7 35.3
Himachal
Pradesh
22.0 9 13.2 64.2 3.0 24.9 4.6
Manipur 17.6 10 11.8 0.5 19.4 30.3 26.1
Source: Author’s Calculations
Findings:
• Arunachal Pradesh ranks highest (59.5) with exceptionally high scores in Quality
of Expenditure (97.6) and strong performance in Fiscal Prudence and Debt Index.
While its Revenue Mobilisation remains moderate, particularly its dependence
on devolution from the Centre, which accounts for 87% of revenue receipts, the
state sustains its position with disciplined expenditure and a relatively sound
debt profile.
• Uttarakhand, on the other hand, is supported primarily by very high Revenue
Mobilisation (83.3) and strong scores in Debt Index and Debt Sustainability. The
state’s ability to raise its own revenue has helped it gain its position; however,
capital outlay accounts for a small proportion of its nominal GSDP (3%) compared
to the other NE states.
• Tripura (44.1) stands out for Debt Sustainability (67.7) and above-average Fiscal
Prudence, while maintaining a strong Debt Index. Despite moderate revenue
performance, debt management and fiscal discipline support its ranking.
• Meghalaya (41.5) and Assam (39.1) occupy middle positions with mixed
performance. Meghalaya benefits from high Quality of Expenditure and a
favourable Debt Index, while Assam performs well in Revenue Mobilisation and
Debt Index, but is weighed down by weak Fiscal Prudence. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 48
• Mizoram, Nagaland, and Sikkim also demonstrate a mixed performance.
Mizoram performs well on Fiscal Prudence and Debt Index but struggles
with Debt Sustainability. Sikkim has balanced scores. Nagaland’s performance
lags under Revenue Mobilisation and Quality of Expenditure, despite a reasonable
debt position.
• Himachal Pradesh and Manipur rank at the bottom with weak performance across
Fiscal Prudence and Revenue Mobilisation, respectively. Himachal Pradesh’s low
Quality of Expenditure (13.2) and near-zero prudence reflect structural fiscal
stress driven by high committed expenditure and debt servicing pressures.
Manipur’s Revenue mobilisation further constrains fiscal space.
• Stronger performers have adopted medium-term fiscal frameworks, digitised
treasury operations, and improved budget transparency. In weaker states, limited
administrative capacity and fragmented public financial management systems
lead to delayed accounts, weak monitoring, and ad hoc expenditure adjustments.
This institutional gap explains much of the divergence in fiscal outcomes. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 49
E.II.2. Table 13: FHI Rank & Score performance from 2014-15 to 2023-24
10

Period 2023-24
2020-21 to
2022-23
2017-18 to
2019-20
2014-15 to
2016-17
States
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
Arunachal
Pradesh
59.5 1 43.4 1 37.6 2 42.3 1
Uttarakhand 52.5 2 35.7 2 28.9 5 33.6 5
Tripura 44.1 3 20.2 8 13.4 9 26.7 8
Meghalaya 41.5 4 28.0 4 28.9 6 34.0 4
Assam 39.1 5 30.6 3 38.2 1 39.8 2
Mizoram 33.4 6 24.0 6 34.5 3 31.0 6
Sikkim 32.5 7 25.7 5 29.8 4 37.5 3
Nagaland 27.1 8 11.7 10 10.6 10 11.6 10
Himachal
Pradesh
22.0 9 21.8 7 24.6 7 29.0 7
Manipur 17.6 10 18.9 9 18.6 8 17.2 9
Source: Author’s Calculations
Trends Across Periods (2014–15 to 2023–24)
Overall, 2023–24 reflects divergent fiscal trajectories across states. Arunachal Pradesh,
Uttarakhand, and Tripura have emerged as fiscal achievers, effectively balancing
revenue growth with sustainable debt management. In contrast, Himachal Pradesh,
Manipur, and Nagaland continue to face fiscal stress due to structural rigidities and
inefficient expenditure patterns. Strengthening fiscal prudence and improving
expenditure quality remain essential to sustain progress and ensure long-term fiscal
stability across lagging states.
10 The Average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-20, and 2020-21 to 2022-23 has been calculated by taking the average
of the values for minor sub-indices across all years within each period. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 50
E.II.3. Graph 2: Comparative Ranking of States for 2023-24, Average for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-2020 & 2020-21 to 2022-23Source: Author’s CalculationsNote: The Average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2017-18 to 2019-20, and 2020-21 to 2022-23 has been calculated by taking the average of the values for minor
sub-indices across all years within each period, using the same methodology as stated above in the Methodology section. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 51
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
State-wise Quality of Expenditure Score Heatmap
AchieverPerformerAspirational
Arunachal Pradesh (1)Assam (3)Tripura (7)
Meghalaya (2)Mizoram (4)Nagaland (8)
Uttarakhand (5) Himachal Pradesh (9)
Sikkim (6)Manipur (10)
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 52
E.II.4. Table 14: Quality of Expenditure: Trend over 10 years
States2023-24
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to 2019-20
Avg 2014-15
to 2016-17
Arunachal Pradesh 97.681.271.958.3
Meghalaya66.654.637.952.7
Assam30.936.831.522.3
Mizoram28.931.551.243.0
Uttarakhand28.2 20.68.828.1
Sikkim27.327.428.434.1
Tripura24.616.53.544.9
Nagaland15.86.78.65.3
Himachal Pradesh 13.2 24.719.523.5
Manipur11.8 30.014.922.7
Trends and Structural Insights: The Quality of Expenditure (QoE) across states
reveals distinct patterns in how resources are allocated to development and
investment. Trends reflect varying progress in developmental spending, capital
formation, and management of committed expenditure. Over the decade, Achievers
have strengthened their spending composition, Performers are improving gradually,
and Aspirational states still face fiscal constraints. Greater focus on developmental
and capital expenditure, along with better control over committed spending, will be
key to improving expenditure quality across all states.
• Achievers (Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya)
Arunachal Pradesh displays one of the greatest improvements in QoE in
the region. Its score rose consistently over the decade, supported by high
developmental spending and a marked rise in capital outlay. The state moved
from a mid-range score in 2014–17 to 97.6 in 2023–24, reflecting a decisive shift
toward investment-led expenditure. Meghalaya also strengthened its QoE, with
scores rising from the low 50s a decade ago to 66.6 in 2023–24. Both states
have benefited from maintaining developmental expenditure above two-thirds
of total spending and ensuring that capital outlay remains an active part of their
fiscal strategy. Their progress highlights the value of sustained prioritisation of
growth-oriented spending.
• Performers (Assam, Mizoram, Uttarakhand and Sikkim)
The Performer states show moderate progress, with improvements that are
steady but not uniform. Assam has gradually increased its QoE, from the
low 20s in 2014–17 to around 31 in 2023–24, supported by consistently high
developmental spending, though capital outlay has remained modest. Mizoram,
too, reflects a mixed trend i.e., stronger scores in earlier years and stabilisation
more recently, as rising committed expenditure has limited further gains.
Uttarakhand shows a recovery from its dip in 2017–20, improving again to 28.2
in 2023–24, though low capital intensity continues to cap its progress. Sikkim Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 53
has largely maintained stable QoE scores around the high-20s to low-30s range,
reflecting a balanced but slow-moving expenditure structure. For these states,
the next phase of improvement will depend on increasing capital spending and
managing committed outlays more efficiently.
• Aspirational (Tripura, Nagaland, Himachal Pradesh and Manipur)
The Aspirational states continue to face structural expenditure challenges.
Tripura’s QoE has fluctuated sharply over the decade, falling in the late 2010s
and recovering to 24.6 in 2023–24, but low capital formation remains a limiting
factor. Nagaland shows persistent rigidity, with QoE remaining low due to
high committed expenditure and constrained fiscal space. Himachal Pradesh,
despite a strong social-sector focus, has seen its QoE decline to 13.2 in 2023–24,
reflecting pressure from rising salaries, pensions and interest payments. Manipur’s
trajectory is also volatile with an improvement in the early 2020s that has not
been sustained, with the QoE dropping back to 11.8 in 2023–24. Across these
states, the combination of high committed spending and low capital outlays
continues to restrict improvements in expenditure quality. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 54
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
State-wise Revenue Mobilisation Score Heatmap
AchieverPerformerAspirational
Uttarakhand (1)Sikkim (4)Tripura (8)
Himachal Pradesh (2) Arunachal Pradesh (5)Nagaland (9)
Assam (3)Meghalaya (6)Manipur (10)
Mizoram (7)
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 55
E.II.5. Table 15: Revenue Mobilisation: Trend over the last 10 years
States 2023-24
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to 2019-20
Avg 2014-15
to 2016-17
Uttarakhand 83.371.574.275.9
Himachal
Pradesh
64.251.455.967.4
Assam58.339.557.953.7
Sikkim44.831.837.044.0
Arunachal
Pradesh
40.623.612.513.8
Meghalaya 38.231.237.331.4
Mizoram37.817.89.46.8
Tripura23.511.315.616.1
Nagaland 20.81.00.10.8
Manipur0.54.52.00.0
Trends and Structural Insights: Achievers have steadily strengthened their
own-revenue effort, reflected in higher SOR/GSDP ratios, improved SOR/Total
Expenditure shares, and declining dependence on transfers. Performers show
gradual but inconsistent progress, with intermittent improvements that do not
sustain across periods. Aspirational states continue to struggle with narrow revenue
bases and rising dependence on grants, limiting their ability to finance development
from internal resources. The decade-long trajectory highlights that enhancing tax
administration, widening the revenue base, and reducing structural dependence on
transfers will be critical to improving revenue mobilisation across all states.
• Achievers (Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Assam)
Achievers exhibit sustained revenue strength over the decade. Uttarakhand
maintained some of the highest scores throughout, supported by an SOR/TE
ratio of 38% and SOR/GSDP above 7%. Himachal Pradesh strengthened again in
2023–24, increasing its score from around 51 in 2020–23 to nearly 64, reflecting
stable own-revenue performance and moderate transfer dependence. Across
these states, SOR/GSDP has remained robust at 6–8%, and SOR/Total Expenditure
has consistently been above 30%, while transfer dependence is generally lower
than in the rest of the region, and revenue systems remain structurally stronger,
with some of the lowest transfer dependence in the region.
• Performers (Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Mizoram)
Performer states show moderate but uneven progress, with improvements often
offset by structural revenue limitations. Sikkim’s performance remained largely
stable over the decade, with only minor changes between periods, as SOR/GSDP
hovered around 5–6%. Arunachal Pradesh saw a clear improvement in the recent
period, raising its score from around 24 in 2020–23 to over 40 in 2023–24, driven
by a rise in SOR/GSDP and a gradual increase in SOR/TE. Meghalaya recorded an
increase from around 31.2 in 2020–23 to 38 in 2023–24, reflecting a surge in own-
revenue receipts. Mizoram maintained its score, its transfer dependence remains FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 56
above 80%. Despite recent gains, these states continue to operate with modest
SOR/GSDP (4–6%) and relatively high reliance on central transfers. Recent
improvements, especially in Meghalaya and Mizoram, demonstrate progress, but
the decade-long pattern shows limited and inconsistent revenue buoyancy.
• Aspirational (Tripura, Nagaland, and Manipur)
Aspirational states remain the most structurally constrained. Tripura improved in
the latest period, with its score increasing from 11.3 in 2020–23 to 23.5 in 2023–
24. Its SOR/GSDP remains roughly 3–4% and transfer dependence continues to
exceed 80%. Nagaland increased its score slightly from about 1 in 2020–23 to
just above 20 in 2023–24 but remains deeply dependent on transfers (close to
90% of total revenues). Manipur, in contrast, saw its already low performance
weaken, with its score falling back to 0.05 in 2023–24 after a limited improvement
in earlier years. Across these states, SOR/TE shares remain among the lowest
in India (8–15%), and transfer dependence remains structurally high, leaving
minimal space for internal revenue-led fiscal strengthening. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 57
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
State-wise Fiscal Prudence Score Heatmap
AchieverPerformerAspirational
Arunachal Pradesh (1)Tripura (2)Manipur (6)
Mizoram (3)Assam (7)
Uttarakhand (4)Meghalaya (8)
Nagaland (5)Sikkim (9)
Himachal Pradesh (10)
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 58
E.II.6. Table 16: Fiscal Prudence: Trend over last 10 years
States2023-24
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to 2019-20
Avg 2014-15
to 2016-17
Arunachal Pradesh 59.0 56.0 36.4 55.5
Tripura38.5 25.80.02.1
Mizoram29.9 13.2 27.1 37.9
Uttarakhand26.6 29.19.39.4
Nagaland21.7 25.012.8 20.2
Manipur19.4 17.3 23.9 19.3
Assam16.4 6.613.7 23.5
Meghalaya12.8 2.611.3 15.9
Sikkim10.8 11.8 10.2 21.9
Himachal Pradesh3.08.614.7 11.7
Trends and Structural Insights: Fiscal prudence across the North Eastern and
Himalayan states shows clear divergence over the decade. Achiever states have
gradually strengthened their fiscal discipline, reflected in lower gross fiscal deficits
and sustained revenue surpluses across multiple periods. Performers display
meaningful progress in recent years, especially post-pandemic, but remain hindered
by earlier volatility and inconsistent deficit management. Aspirational states face
higher deficits. Enhancing medium-term fiscal planning, reducing structural deficits,
and maintaining revenue surpluses will be critical for states seeking to strengthen
fiscal prudence going forward.
• Achiever (Arunachal Pradesh)
Arunachal Pradesh remains the sole Achiever, driven by sustained fiscal
discipline. Its prudence score increased sharply, from 36.4 in 2017–20 to 56.0 in
2020–23, and further to 59.0 in 2023–24. This improvement aligns with
consistently low gross fiscal deficits (hovering near 4% of GSDP) and continued
revenue surpluses, which improved from a deficit position in 2017–20 to a surplus
of 0.18% of GSDP in 2023–24. Relative to the region, it stands out for its ability to
preserve surpluses and moderate spending growth even during pandemic years.
• Performers (Tripura, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, and Nagaland)
The Performer group shows notable improvement in the post-pandemic period,
though performance remains uneven across states. Between 2017–20 and
2023–24, prudence scores for Tripura, Mizoram, Uttarakhand and Nagaland generally
increased by 10–25 points, reflecting a clear tightening of fiscal management.
Gross fiscal deficits in these states narrowed visibly, for example, several moved
from 4–5% of GSDP in 2017–20 to around 2–3% in 2023–24. Revenue balances also
improved: where most were in deficit during 2017–20, multiple states (particularly
Tripura and Uttarakhand) transitioned to small surpluses by 2023–24. Despite this
progress, these states still face volatility. Surpluses tend to emerge intermittently,
and increases in prudence scores are often countered by periods of slippage driven
by rising committed expenditure and uneven revenue growth. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 59
• Aspirational (Manipur, Assam, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and Himachal Pradesh)
Their prudence scores either stagnated or improved only marginally over the
decade. While some states saw a modest rise between 2020–23 and 2023–24,
most gains were under 10 points, insufficient to offset earlier declines from
2017–20. Gross fiscal deficits often remained above 4–5% of GSDP, and revenue
deficits widened in several states, where revenue balances deteriorated again in
2023–24. Across these states, expenditure rigidity, especially salaries, pensions,
and interest payments, continues to limit fiscal maneuverability. Even when
deficits narrowed temporarily (e.g., Sikkim or Meghalaya in select years), the
improvements proved hard to sustain. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 60
State-wise Debt Index Score Heatmap
AchieverPerformerAspirational
Assam (1)Meghalaya (6)Manipur (9)
Mizoram (2)Sikkim (7)Himachal Pradesh (10)
Uttarakhand (3)Nagaland (8)
Tripura (4)
Arunachal Pradesh (5)
Achiever
Performer
Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 61
E.II.7. Table 17: Debt Index: Trend over last 10 years
States2023-24
Avg 2020-21
to 2022-23
Avg 2017-18
to 2019-20
Avg 2014-15
to 2016-17
Assam69.2 66.986.588.7
Mizoram69.1 57.764.043.7
Uttarakhand66.5 47.446.254.9
Tripura66.2 37.643.653.9
Arunachal
Pradesh
62.0 54.562.069.7
Meghalaya57.8 44.557.866.4
Sikkim56.5 52.770.078.7
Nagaland41.7 20.223.021.1
Manipur30.3 36.841.633.1
Himachal Pradesh 24.9 15.326.731.7
Trends and Structural Insights: Debt sustainability has diverged significantly across
states over the decade. Achievers show steady improvements through prudent
borrowing, controlled interest burdens, and stronger revenue bases. Performers
reflect partial gains but remain constrained by high interest payment commitments
and uneven revenue growth. Aspirational states continue to face structural pressures,
marked by high debt ratios and weak repayment capacity. Overall, stronger revenue
mobilisation, disciplined borrowing, and improved debt management will remain
essential to reducing long-term fiscal risks.
• Achievers (Assam, Mizoram, Uttarakhand, Tripura, and Arunachal Pradesh)
This group shows the strongest consolidation in the Debt Index. Assam (Debt
Index 69.2 in 2023–24) now records outstanding liabilities of ~25.9% of GSDP
(2023–24) and interest payments of about 8.9% of revenue receipts (2023–24);
although liabilities and interest payments grew sharply between 2020–21 and
2023–24 (+67% and +57%), revenue growth and partial consolidation in servicing
have kept its Debt Index high. Similarly, Tripura, Mizoram and Uttarakhand display
either falling or stable debt-to-GSDP ratios (roughly mid-20s to mid-30s) and
moderate interest burdens, which lifted their Debt Index scores over the decade.
• Performers (Meghalaya, Sikkim, and Nagaland)
Performers reflect mixed but generally stable debt management. Meghalaya’s
liabilities have stayed elevated (around 41–43% of GSDP), and interest payments,
though contained at 3% of revenue, have edged up over time, causing its score
to fall from 66.4 (2014–17) to 57.8 (2023–24). Sikkim, despite maintaining
modest liabilities at ~31% of GSDP, faces persistent stress due to high interest-
to-own-revenue ratios (over 30% across most years). This structural imbalance
has pushed its score down reflecting worsening debt sustainability even with
low absolute debt levels. Nagaland shows the most significant slippage within FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 62
the group. Its outstanding liabilities have risen from 44% to over 45.6% of GSDP,
while interest payments consistently consume 6–7% of revenue and nearly 50%
of its own revenue.
• Aspirational (Manipur and Himachal Pradesh)
Aspirational states show persistent and structural debt stress. Manipur faces high
repayment burdens: interest payments consume 55–70% of its own revenue, and
liabilities remain high at ~43–44% of GSDP. Its decade-long heatmap underscores
this rigidity, scores remained in the lower 30s primarily due to temporary fiscal
consolidation. Himachal Pradesh remains the weakest. Outstanding liabilities
exceed 45–50% of GSDP, among the highest across all states. Interest payments
have risen steadily, from 13.8% of revenue receipts in 2014–17 to over 14% in
2023–24, while interest relative to own revenue consistently exceeds 35–40%. Its
score has fallen from 31.7 (reflecting the high-debt but high-capacity structure
earlier) to 24.9 in 2023–24, signalling mounting unsustainability. Both states face
entrenched constraints high committed expenditure, heavy welfare outlays, and
limited own-revenue bases. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 63
E.II.8. Composite FHI Score Relationship with Sub Indicators for 2023-24
11
Graph G5 in appendix illustrates the relationship between the FHI score and the
sub-indices under Quality of Expenditure (Total Developmental Expenditure/Total
Expenditure, Capital Outlay/Nominal GSDP, and Committed Expenditure/Total
Expenditure). Arunachal Pradesh’s high share of developmental expenditure has
significantly contributed to its strong FHI score; the state allocated 68% of its Revenue
Developmental Expenditure to social and economic services. Assam, Meghalaya, and
Mizoram also maintained higher-than-average shares of developmental spending,
supporting sectors such as health and education. In some cases, however, higher
performance on expenditure quality does not translate into a higher FHI score. For
example, Meghalaya records higher index values for Developmental Expenditure
and Capital Outlay than Tripura, yet Tripura’s overall FHI score is higher due to
stronger performance in Debt Index and Debt Sustainability.
Graph G6 in appendix shows the relationship between the FHI score and sub-
indices under Revenue Mobilisation (State Own Revenue/Total Expenditure, State
Own Revenue/Nominal GSDP, and Devolution & Grants/Total Receipts). Assam and
Himachal Pradesh benefit from high State Own Revenue/Total Expenditure ratios,
contributing to higher FHI outcomes. Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and
Uttarakhand mobilise around 7–10% of total revenues from their own resources.
At the same time, states such as Assam and Sikkim remain more dependent on
devolution and grants, which account for about 24–29% of their total revenue. In
some cases, higher revenue mobilisation does not imply a higher FHI score. Although
Assam has a higher Revenue Mobilisation index value than Arunachal Pradesh,
Arunachal Pradesh scores higher overall due to stronger Quality of Expenditure
and Fiscal Prudence.
Graph G7 in appendix highlights the relationship between the FHI score and sub-
indices under Fiscal Prudence (Gross Fiscal Deficit/Nominal GSDP and Revenue
Deficit/Nominal GSDP). Arunachal Pradesh’s high index value for Revenue Deficit/
GSDP, reflecting a low revenue deficit, supports its strong FHI performance. In
some cases, higher prudence metrics alone do not lead to a higher FHI score. For
example, Mizoram has a higher Fiscal Prudence index than Assam, yet Assam’s FHI
score is higher, driven by better Quality of Expenditure and stronger performance
under the Debt Index.
Graph G8 in appendix examines the relationship between the FHI score and sub-
indices under the Debt Index (Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts and Outstanding
Liabilities/Nominal GSDP). Uttarakhand’s high Debt Index value reflects sustainable
debt management and contributes to its strong FHI score. States experience
varied debt dynamics, some face fluctuating debt levels, while others pursue
fiscal consolidation but remain constrained by high social spending and revenue
challenges. In some cases, a stronger Debt Index does not result in a higher FHI
score. For example, Assam scores higher than Meghalaya on the Debt Index, but
Meghalaya’s overall FHI score is higher due to better performance under Quality of
Expenditure.
11 Refer Graph 7, Graph 8, Graph 9 and Graph 10 in the Appendix FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 64
SECTION F.I
STATE PROFILES:
18 MAJOR STATES Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 65
ANDHRA PRADESH
Andhra Pradesh’s fiscal position reflects a persistent imbalance between revenue
generation and expenditure
commitments, with limited
progress toward fiscal
consolidation despite sustained
growth in developmental
spending. The State’s expenditure
pattern underscores its strong
emphasis on welfare and
infrastructure, particularly in
education, health, housing,
irrigation, and energy. However, a
large share of outlays continues
to be absorbed by committed
liabilities such as salaries, pensions, and interest payments, leaving relatively little
fiscal room for discretionary and growth-enhancing investments. While own tax
revenues have shown healthy momentum, aided by buoyant GST and commodity
taxes, the narrow base of non-tax revenue and its dependence on mining-related
receipts expose the State to cyclical and sectoral risks. Persistent revenue and fiscal
deficits, coupled with rising liabilities and frequent deviations from FRBM targets,
point to mounting fiscal stress. The pace of debt accumulation and high refinancing
needs have also raised concerns about debt sustainability, particularly given that a
growing portion of borrowings is being utilised for revenue expenditure rather than
capital formation.
Quality of Expenditure
• The total developmental expenditure, comprising both revenue and capital
components, increased significantly from ₹1.01 lakh crore in 2019–20 to ₹1.67
lakh crore in 2023–24, marking an overall rise of nearly 65% over the five years.
This sustained growth underscores the government’s continued emphasis on
strengthening growth-oriented and welfare sectors.
• Capital expenditure during the last five years has remained within the range
of 4 to 9% of the GSDP, indicating consistent efforts toward asset creation
and infrastructure development. In 2023–24, Social Services accounted for
the largest share of capital outlay at 52.4%, reflecting a focus on education,
health, and housing, while Economic Services accounted for 44.6%, primarily
driven by investments in the transport, irrigation, and energy sectors.
• Around 48.59% of the total revenue expenditure in 2023–24 was devoted to
committed expenses such as salaries, interest payments, and pensions.
26%28%29%
38%
17%
19%
21%
19%8%
4%
11%
9%
32%
37%
38%
31%
17%
12%
0%2%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 66
Revenue Mobilisation
• The State’s revenue receipts are primarily driven by its own tax revenue,
which accounted for around 52% of the total revenue receipts in 2023–24.
Within this, Taxes on Commodities and Services contributed the highest
share at 35.5%, followed closely by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) with
a 34.1 %share. The State’s own revenue has shown a healthy upward trend,
registering about 48% growth over the last five years.
• Non-tax revenue, on the other hand, constituted around 3 %of the total
revenue receipts in 2023–24. Within this category, Non-Ferrous Mining and
Metallurgical Industries emerged as the dominant contributor, accounting for
41.2 %of non-tax revenue.
Fiscal Prudence
• Despite the fiscal consolidation mandate under the FRBM framework, Andhra
Pradesh recorded a revenue deficit of ₹38,683 crore in 2023–24, translating
to 2.68% of GSDP, against the target of 3% revenue deficit cap.
• The fiscal deficit widened to ₹62,720 crore, breaching the prescribed ceiling
of 4% of GSDP and reaching 4.35% of GSDP in 2023–24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The total liabilities of the State Government increased by 61.1% 2019-20 to
2023-24, recording a growth of 51.01% during the last five years. The CAGR
over the five years is approximately 12.7%. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 67
65










*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.

2.2%
1.7%
1.4%
0.6%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3% Capital Outlay to GSDP
Andhra Pradesh
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.6%
6.0%
0.5% 0.4%
6.6%
1.6%
49.9% 51.9% 53.7%
60.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Non Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHS)
4.0%
4.1%
4.0%
2.6%
1.6%
3.3%3.1%
0.3%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDPRD/GSDP
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
28.3%
29.5%
33.0%
13.4%
16.2%
30.0%
13.9%
5%
15%
25%
35%
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP Average*
IP/RR Average*
16%
9%
12%
6.6%
7.3%6.9%
8.5%
1.7%
-2%
8%
18%
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap**
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 68
BIHAR
Bihar’s fiscal position remains under pressure despite an improvement in headline
indicators during 2023–24. The
return to a revenue surplus and a
reduction in fiscal deficit reflect
short-term consolidation rather
than structural strengthening, as
the State continues to depend
heavily on Union transfers, with
its own revenue contributing less
than one-third of total receipts.
The narrow non-tax base and
rising subsidy commitments,
particularly to the energy sector,
limit the State’s fiscal flexibility.
While capital expenditure has been maintained at a relatively high level, expenditure
quality is weakened by the growing weight of committed and subsidy expenditure.
Debt levels remain high, with outstanding liabilities expanding faster than the State’s
economic growth over the medium term. Although the debt-to-GSDP ratio has
marginally improved and remains within the FRBM ceiling, the volatility in primary
deficit and persistent expenditure pressures indicate that Bihar’s fiscal stability
requires a focused approach on better revenue mobilisation and expenditure
management.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2023–24, Capital Expenditure stood at ₹36,453.12 crore (15.90% of Aggregate
Expenditure), above the GCS average, indicating a stronger focus on asset
creation. The Capex as a percentage of GSDP ranged from 2.11% to 4.27% during
the last five years.
• The share of Education in Aggregate Expenditure (19.07%) was higher than
the national average of 14.36%, while Health expenditure (5.68%) remained
marginally lower than the General Category States’ average of 5.71%.
• Subsidies constituted 8.40% of the State’s Total Revenue Receipts, 30.30% of
the State’s Own Revenue and 1.90% of GSDP. About 81% of total subsidies in
2023-24 were directed to the Energy sector. Subsidy expenditure showed a
rising trend during 2019–24, reaching its highest level in 2023-24.
32% 34%
43%
38%
4%1%
4%
2%
24%
19%
10%
18%
31%
32%
40%
31%
10%
14%
3%
10%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 69
Revenue Mobilisation
• Over the previous year, Revenue Receipts increased by 11.96%, marking an
improvement over 2022–23. Major components of Revenue Receipts were Share
of Union Taxes and Duties (58.76 %) and Grants-in-aid from GoI (13.51 %). State’s
Own Revenue constitutes 27.73% of the Revenue Receipts.
• The State’s Share of Union Taxes, Own Tax Revenue, and Non-Tax Revenue grew
by 18.95%, 9.87%, and 27.14%, respectively, in 2023-24, while Grants-in-aid from
GoI declined by 9.99% over the previous year.
• Revenue Buoyancy with reference to GSDP increased to 0.83 in 2023-24. State’s
Own Revenue Buoyancy with reference to GSDP also increased considerably
from 0.09 in 2019-20 to 0.78 in 2023-24.
• Despite overall buoyancy in receipts, narrow non-tax revenue base at only 2.72%
of Revenue Receipts and 0.62% of GSDP and the heavy reliance on centrally
devolved taxes necessitates diversification of own sources and improved
compliance for sustained fiscal stability.
Fiscal Prudence
• Bihar achieved a revenue surplus of ₹2,833.06 crore in 2023–24, reversing the
revenue deficits of the previous years, supported by stronger receipts and
moderated expenditure growth.
• The Fiscal Deficit reduced y-o-y from `44,823.30 crore in 2022-23 to `35,659.88
crore in 2023-24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt-to-GSDP stood at 38.94% in 2023–24, marginally below the FRBM ceiling
of 40.40%. The major component of the overall liabilities was Internal Debt which
constituted 70.99%, during the current year.
• The State’s Outstanding Liabilities grew by 72.06% between 2019-20 and 2023-
24, outpacing the GSDP growth of 46.85%, indicating a faster rise in debt relative
to the State’s economic expansion.
• The Domar gap was positive from 2021-22 to 2023-24, indicating debt
sustainability in these years, while it was negative during 2019-21. The gap
showed a rising trend till 2022-23, before dipping to 9.02 in 2023-24.
• Interest payments with respect to Revenue Receipts ranged between 8.70% to
9.74% during 2019-20 to 2023-24. During the current year they increased by
0.32 percentage points over the previous year. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 68=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
5.6%
5.9%
0.8%
0.6%
6.6%
1.6%
24.8B
28.5B
27.7B
60.7B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
70B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
5.3%
6.2%
3.7%
4.2%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Bihar Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
3.3%2.6%
6.0%
J1.7%
J1.3%
1.5%3.1%
0.3%
-4B
-2B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
28.9B
32.0B
39.3B
7.6%8.8%
30.0B
13.9B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
14B
15B
12B
7.2%
6.4%6.0%
6.6%
J8.9%
12.0B
-15%
-5B
5%
15B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 70
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 71
CHHATTISGARH
Chhattisgarh’s fiscal health reflects a broadly stable yet evolving trajectory marked
by improving revenue
mobilisation and expanding
developmental expenditure,
though fiscal pressures have
resurfaced in recent years. The
State has demonstrated progress
in augmenting its own revenue
sources, with a growing share of
collections coming from internal
resources and rising tax
buoyancy. This strengthening of
own-revenue performance has
been accompanied by prudent
use of central transfers, enabling the State to maintain fiscal stability even amid
economic fluctuations. However, expenditure composition reveals growing rigidity.
A rising share of committed spending continues to limit fiscal flexibility, leaving less
room for discretionary or growth-oriented expenditure. While capital spending has
been relatively stable and supportive of infrastructure creation, the quality of
expenditure has come under strain due to the expansion of welfare-oriented
schemes. The fiscal deficit has remained elevated, driven by both increased social
spending and higher borrowing, placing pressure on debt sustainability.
Quality of Expenditure
• Total expenditure of the State increased by 58.92% from 2019-20 to 2023-24.
However, the total expenditure as a percentage of GSDP has a fluctuating trend,
with a decrease from 2019-20 to 2021-22 and an increase from 2022-23 to 2023-24.
• Capital expenditure as a percentage of GSDP remained relatively stable, with a
slight increase from 2022-23 (2.87%) to 2023-24 (3.05 %).
• The Revenue Expenditure rose from the previous year due to new and expanded
schemes such as Krishak Unnati Yojana, Mahatari Vandan Yojana, Samagra
Shiksha, PM Awas Yojana (Rural), and agricultural power subsidy, along with
higher pension outlays.
• Committed Expenditure saw an increasing trend and has grown by 18.1% during
the period 2019-20 to 2023-24.
25%25%23%
28%
18%20%22%
22%
16%10%
17%3%
38%45%33%
33%
2%0%
5%
14%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 72
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts increased by 62.1% during 2019-20 to 2023-24. During
2023-24, Revenue receipts increased by 10.26% over the previous year, mainly
due to an increase in receipts of Own Tax Revenue and the State’s share in Union
taxes and duties.
• During 2019-20, about 47% of the revenue receipts came from the State’s own
resources, while Central Tax Transfers and Grants-in-Aid together contributed
53%. In the year 2023-24, about 52% of the revenue receipts came from the
State’s own resources.
• The own tax revenue buoyancy steadily increased from 0.60 in 2019-20 to 1.91
in 2023-24, which suggests that the growth of tax collection in the State has
improved relative to its economic growth.
Fiscal Prudence
• The fiscal deficit of the State increased to 5.32% of GSDP in 2023-24 5.21% of
GSDP in 2019-20.
• During 2023-24, the target for Revenue Surplus and fiscal deficit was set to
3.30% and 2.99% of the GSDP, respectively, as per the Medium-Term Fiscal Policy
Statement presented along with Budget 2023-24. In 2023-24, revenue deficit
was 2.22 %; fiscal deficit was 5.32% as against the limit of 2.99 %
• The ratio of Fiscal Deficit to GSDP was within the target prescribed under FRBM/
MTFPS during the years 2020-21 to 2022-23, however, during 2019-20 and 2023-24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The debt-GSDP ratio of the State remained unstable. It is observed that, except
for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23, the growth in overall liabilities/debt remained
higher than the nominal growth.
• The percentage of Overall outstanding liabilities to GSDP during 2023-24 was
24.93 %, which exceeded the target prescribed in the MTFPS (23.81 %) by the
State Government, but within the indicative debt as a percentage of GSDP
projected (30.8 %) by the XV Finance Commission.
• Interest payments in 2023-24 increased by 36.78% over 2019-20 due to a rise in
the public debt during 2019-24. As a percentage of revenue receipts, expenditure
on interest payments decreased from 7.78% in 2019-20 to 6.57% in 2023-24. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 71=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
17B
12B12B
6.7%
6.6%
4.9%
-5B
5%
15B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
3.0%
3.5%
2.6%
2.9%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Chhattisgarh Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.6%
7.2%
2.4%
3.3%
6.6%
1.6%
45.8B
47.5B
52.1B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.6%
2.5%
1.0%
0.7%
J0.2%
J1.9%
3.1%
0.3%
-3B
-2B
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
14.1B
20.4B
22.2B
5.6%6.8%
30.0B
13.9B
3%
13B
23B
33B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average* 13R=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the=difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
6.9%
10.3B
3.8%
4.4%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
12B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Mizoram
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.3%
3.7%
2.1% 3.4%
4.8%
1.5%
10.9B
15.6B
20.0B
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B
0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
7.7%
1.6%
3.7%
J1.0%
J7.0%
J0.6%
3.8%
J2.9%
-10%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
48.5B
33.4B
36.4B
4.1%4.8%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
20B
40B
60B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
11.6B
13.1B
10.2B12.5B
5.6%
5.1%
5.3%
6.2%
J8.9%
4.9%
-9B
-4B
1%
6%
11B
16B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 73
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 74
GOA
Goa’s fiscal position reflects strong revenue mobilisation, with own resources
contributing 71% of receipts and
steady growth in tax revenues.
However, revenue-to-GSDP
ratios have declined, and a
reduced revenue surplus
alongside rising fiscal deficit
signals limited fiscal space.
Committed expenditure remains
high, and a significant share of
revenue expenditure continues
to constrain developmental and
capital priorities, though capital
spending has shown some
improvement. Debt sustainability shows strong improvement, with the debt–GSDP
ratio declining after 2021 and interest payments remaining manageable, yet the
ratio still exceeds statutory limits. Most borrowings are used for repayments rather
than fresh investment, and off-budget liabilities are contained. Overall, Goa exhibits
stable fiscal management with cautious optimism for capital formation, tempered
by structural expenditure rigidity and ongoing quality-of-spend issues.
Quality of Expenditure
• Committed expenditure constituted 49–52% of revenue expenditure from
2019–24. Revenue expenditure made up 81–87% of total spend, limiting
flexibility for developmental and capital projects. Capital expenditure increased
significantly to ₹3,571 crore (17% of total in 2023-24), indicating some improvement
in asset creation.
• The state had 115 incomplete projects with ₹484 crore locked, and the Roads,
Bridges, and Buildings sector accounted for 78% of the blocked estimated cost.
This highlights efficiency and quality issues, where funds are tied up without
yielding intended outcomes. Subsidies ranged between 2–4% of revenue
expenditure and reached ₹620 crore in 2023-24
• Outstanding utilisation certificates (₹3,028 crore), pending contingent bills (₹196
crore), and widespread delays in reconciliation undermine expenditure quality
and financial control.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts grew at 5.7%, amounting to ₹18,272 crore, with the state’s own
tax revenue up by 11.5% since last year. Own resources accounted for 71% of
receipts, while central transfers accounted for the remaining 29%, reflecting
resilience and relative self-sufficiency.
17%19%22%18%
31%
32%
37%
30%
16%
14%
17%
17%
23%
27%
24%
21%
14%
8%
0%
15%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 75
• The ratio of revenue receipts (and tax revenue) to GSDP declined (from 18.45%
to 17.15%), signalling a need to widen the tax base and strengthen collection
mechanisms as economic growth outpaced revenue growth in 2023-24.
• Revenue surplus decreased to ₹1,423 crore (from ₹2,400 crore), while fiscal
deficit increased to ₹2,148 crore, mainly due to higher total expenditure outpacing
moderate revenue growth.
Fiscal Prudence
• Fiscal deficit remained within FRBM target (2.02% of GSDP against 3% cap), and
the state posted a revenue surplus in three of the last five years. However, the
debt–GSDP ratio consistently exceeded Goa’s statutory ceiling of 25%, reaching
29.3% in 2023-24.
• There was no excess expenditure in 2023-24, but past excesses (₹12,625 crore
from 2008–23) remain unregularized. Large outstanding utilisation certificates
and AC bills, along with insufficient reconciliation, signal gaps in fiscal control
and outcome monitoring.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Between 2019 and 2024, the debt-to-GSDP ratio fluctuated between 29.27%
and 34.63%. Over the same period, interest payments on total debt amounted
to 10.33–15.23% of revenue receipts.
• Total outstanding debt reached ₹32,867 crore (29.3% of GSDP), down from a peak
of 34.6% in 2020-21. The Goa Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act
mandate the state to bring the stock of outstanding debt down to 25% of GSDP
by 2015-16 and to retain it at that level thereafter.
• Interest payments were 10.3% of revenue receipts. Of the ₹32,867 crore in debt,
71% was internal, 12% was central government loans, and 17% was public account
liabilities. Repayments amounted to 89% of debt receipts in 2023-24, with most
borrowings used to repay debt rather than for fresh capital formation. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 74=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP)=and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
=
10B
14B
12B
7.7% 7.2%
6.2%
6.6%
J8.2%
7.5%-9B
2%
12B
22B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G
2.6%
3.0%
3.3%
3.7%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Go~ Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.8%
4.0% 4.1%
6.6%
1.6%
72.9B 67.6B
70.8B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.0%
2.5%
1.1%
J0.6%
J0.5%
J2.6%
3.1%
0.3%
-3B
-2B
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
29.0B 28.4B
32.4B
11.8B
10.5B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average* 76
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 77
GUJARAT
Gujarat’s fiscal performance in 2023–24 demonstrates prudent debt management
and fiscal management.
Development and social sector
spending remain strong, with
capital expenditure rising to
22.48% of total outlays, signalling
a clear long-term growth
orientation. Health and education
expenditures outpace peer
states, reflecting a focus on
human development, though
subsidies, particularly for
agriculture and industry,
consume a growing share of
revenue expenditure. Revenue receipts grew faster than GSDP, driven by robust tax
and non-tax collection, underscoring the State’s fiscal capacity, but persistent
arrears highlight collection challenges. Fiscal prudence is evident in maintained
revenue surpluses, low fiscal deficits, and controlled debt levels, with liabilities-to-
GSDP ratios steadily declining. Debt sustainability is reinforced by a favourable
maturity profile, low refinancing risk, and real GSDP growth exceeding interest
costs, enabling the state to finance development while maintaining fiscal stability.
Quality of Expenditure
• Development expenditure formed 72.35% of the total, up from 70.02% in 2019-
20. Within this, social sector spending also rose from 41.72%. Capital expenditure
increased to 22.48%, from 15.28% in 2019-20. These ratios are all higher than
those of other large states. In particular, the rise in capital expenditure from
around 16% to 22.48% over 2019-24 signals a stronger long-term growth focus.
• Expenditure on health (6.89% of total) and education (14.91% of total) outpaced
peer states in 2023–24, but remain almost similar to the 2019-20 proportions
which are 6.13% and 14.73% respectively. 
• Significant subsidies (up 8.9% over the previous year) now consume 14.8% of
revenue expenditure, with heavy agricultural and industrial support. Subsidies as
a proportion of revenue expenditure have also been on the rise since 2019-20,
which stood at 13.07%.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Gujarat’s revenue receipts rose by 11.7% in 2023-24 over 2022-23, outpacing
GSDP growth and exceeding budget estimates by 7.25%. Own resources (tax
and non-tax revenue) made up 70.89% of revenue receipts, reflecting robust
state capacity and have experienced a CAGR of 11% from 2019-20.
19%18%18%20%
21%20%18%18%
18%18%21%21%
30%33%31%30%
13%12%12%12%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 78
• Tax revenues driven by SGST, Sales Tax/VAT, and Stamp Duty, and
non-tax revenue up by 28.6% over 2022-23, primarily due to enhanced interest,
mining, and irrigation receipts. Non-tax revenues have also grown at a 6% CAGR
since 2019-20.
• Own tax revenue as a percentage of GSDP has risen from 4.89% in 2019-20
to 5.45% in 2023-24. Similarly, even the own tax revenue as a percentage of
revenue receipts has experienced an increase from 55.31% in 2019-20 to 60.25%
indicating robust revenue management practices of the state.
Fiscal Prudence
• Over 2019-20 to 2023-24, Gujarat broadly outperformed revenue balance targets
(moving from a small surplus to a rising surplus by 2023-24), kept fiscal deficit
consistently better than the target path except in 2020-21, and reduced the debt-
GSDP ratio below the target by 2023-24, indicating progressive consolidation
across all three indicators.
• In 2023-24 Gujarat maintained its revenue surplus (1.36% of GSDP), fiscal deficit
(0.95% of GSDP), and public debt (14.31% of GSDP, excluding special GST
compensation loans) within the targets set in the Medium-Term Fiscal Policy
Statement (MTFPS).
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The public debt as a ratio of GSDP has steadily declined to 14.31% by 2023-24
from 19.51% in 2019-20, well within the prescribed limits of the Gujarat Fiscal
Responsibility Act, 2005 of 27.10%, due to strong nominal growth and primary
surpluses post-pandemic.
• Across 2019-20 to 2023-24, the State consistently remained well below the
statutory ceiling on debt-GSDP ratio and kept outstanding guarantees far within
the ₹20,000 crore cap in every year, meeting the targets throughout the period. 
• The majority (over 50%) of the State’s borrowings are due beyond five years,
limiting refinancing risk. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 77=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
=
2.6%
2.0%
1.5%
1.6%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Gujarat Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
5.4%
5.7%
0.9% 0.8%
6.6%
1.6%
70.8B
63.0B70.9B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.0% 1.8%
0.8%
J0.6%
J0.2%
J0.9%
3.1%
0.3%
-2B
-1B
1%
2%
3%
4%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
22.0B
19.2B
18.7B
14.8B
12.7B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
19B
12B12B
8.0% 7.9%
6.6%
6.6%
3.6%
5.2%
-8B
13B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 79
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 80
HARYANA
Haryana’s fiscal position reflects a gradual consolidation path marked by improved
compliance with fiscal targets
but constrained expenditure
flexibility. The State has benefited
from steady growth in its own
tax revenues, particularly
commercial taxes, which has
strengthened its fiscal autonomy
and reduced dependence on
central transfers. However, the
predominance of committed and
inflexible expenditure continues
to limit the scope for
developmental and capital
outlays, constraining the creation of new assets and expansion of services. Despite
a moderation in deficits and adherence to the FRBM thresholds, the composition of
spending dominated by salaries, pensions, interest, and power subsidies continues
to crowd out productive expenditure. Although debt sustainability has improved
over the years but the overall debt levels remain above the long-term targets.
Quality of Expenditure
• Committed and inflexible expenditure together accounted for 62% of revenue
expenditure in 2023-24, reducing flexibility for development or capital projects. 
• Revenue expenditure made up 82–93% of total expenditure from 2019-24,
showing limited room for asset creation and service expansion. Revenue
expenditure increased by 33.41% while Capital expenditure decreased by 9.88%
during the period 2019-20 to 2023-24. The share of Loans and Advances was
1.26% in 2019-20 which increased to 3.04% in 2023-24.
• The combined expenditure on Social and Economic services, which represents
development expenditure decreased from 67.47% in 2019-20 to 62.39 %
in 2023-24.
• Borrowed funds were focused toward meeting current consumption and debt
repayment, allowing only 18% of total borrowings to be used for capital creation.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts grew by 13.6% in 2023-24, with the state’s own tax revenue
increasing 15.2% and total tax revenue up 15.7%, underpinned by buoyancy in
commercial taxes.
• Own Tax revenue increased by 69.32% in 2023-24 over 2019-20 and the actual
receipts under Non-Tax revenue increased by 9.50% during the same period.
21%
26%
20%21%
27%
29%
37%
28%
6%
8%
13%
16%
39%
28%
21%
18%
7%9%9%
16%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization Fiscal Prudence
Debt IndexDebt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 81
• The share of grants-in-aid in total revenue receipts fell from 15.5% in 2019-20 to
8.3% in 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• Revenue deficit fell by about 31% to ₹11,881 crore, and fiscal deficit stayed within
the FRBM Act target (2.87% of GSDP vs. target 2.96%).
• Subsidies rose to ₹10,718 crore (10.6% of revenue receipts) in 2023-24, with the
power sector alone accounting for 74% of these payments.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The debt-to-GSDP ratio decreased from a peak of 32.7% (2020-21) to 29.8%
(2023-24) due to improved rate spread and GSDP growth, though it remains
above the FRBM target.
• Debt sustainability analysis indicates that a positive Domar gap (growth-interest
differential) and improving primary balances have allowed stability, with annual
debt growth averaging 12.2%. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 80=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
=
0.8%
2.1%
1.3%
1.2%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Haryan~ Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.1% 6.4%
1.1%
0.9%
6.6%
1.6%
76.6B 72.3B 79.6B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.9%
3.1%
3.2%1.9%
1.6%
1.7%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
20.2B
26.4B
31.0B
20.6B
22.5B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
20B
11B
12B
9.4%
8.3%
7.1%
6.6%
J9.0%
4.3%-9B
11BDebt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 82
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 83
JHARKHAND
Jharkhand’s fiscal landscape presents a picture of stability anchored in prudence,
yet evolving toward a stronger
developmental orientation. The
State has managed to maintain
fiscal discipline with sustained
revenue surplus and contained
deficits, supported by steady
growth in own revenues and
substantial transfers from the
Central Government that
continue to underpin its fiscal
capacity. However, the
moderation in revenue buoyancy
suggests that receipts have not
kept pace with economic expansion, underscoring the need for more responsive
and diversified revenue streams. On the expenditure front, greater emphasis on
capital formation and economic infrastructure has strengthened the quality of
spending, though allocations to education, health, and social services remain
modest, constraining improvements in human capital outcomes. At the same time,
rising committed liabilities and subsidies have begun to narrow fiscal flexibility. A
declining debt burden, together with a positive Domar gap and sustained primary
surplus, reflects sound debt sustainability and favourable growth dynamics.
Quality of Expenditure
• The State’s capital expenditure increased by 46.76% in 2023-24, as compared
to the previous year, largely driven by higher spending on Economic Services by
63.94% and Social Services by 26.68 %.
• Revenue expenditure increased by 14.99% in 2023-24, as compared to the
previous year, with Social Services increasing by 3.87 %, and Economic Services
by 41.80 %.
• The State’s expenditure on sectors such as education, health, and social services
was lower than the average of General Category States. The ratio of expenditure
on education and health to TE remained nearly the same as in 2018-19.
• During 2023-24, committed expenditure accounted for 41.06% of the
revenue expenditure and 35.81% of revenue receipts, showing a decline from the
previous year.
• Subsidies rose marginally in 2023–24, forming 5.5% of revenue receipts and 6.3%
of revenue expenditure, driven mainly by higher outlays on power (₹2,300 crore)
and civil supplies (₹1,689 crore).
29%
24%
20%
26%
14%
15%
18%
15%
17%
16%
22%
22%
38%
33%
28%
27%
2%
12%11% 10%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 84
Revenue Mobilisation
• The State’s own revenues grew by 9.18% in 2023-24. Own tax revenues increased
by 11% over the previous year, driven mainly by higher collections of Taxes on
Sales, Trade, etc. (11%) and SGST (9%).
• The share of non-tax revenues in total revenue receipts ranged between
13.5% and 16% during 2019-20 to 2023-24. The main source, Non-ferrous
Mining and Metallurgical Industries, increased by ₹ 561 crore in 2023-24 over
the previous year.
• The ratio of transfers from the Central Government to non-debt receipts was
highest during 2017-18 (62%) due to a fall in the collection of own revenue. During
2023-24, the ratio stood at 48.84 %. As a percentage of Revenue Receipts,
Central tax transfers increased from 35% in 2019-20 to 42% in 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• The State maintained its fiscal deficit within the defined targets during 2023-24.
The State’s fiscal deficit declined to ₹6,332 crore (1.37% of GSDP) in 2023-24
from ₹8,035 crore (2.59% of GSDP) in 2019-20
• The revenue surplus decreased from ₹13,564 crore in 2022-23 to ₹11,252
crore in 2023-24, a decline of 17.04%, resulting in a revenue surplus of 2.44% of
GSDP in 2023-24.
• The State recorded a primary deficit during 2019–20 and 2020–21, but
subsequently turned around to maintain a primary surplus for three consecutive
years. Primary surplus of ₹ 3,682 crore in FY 2021-22, decreased to ₹ 507 crore
in FY 2023-24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The State’s debt burden has been declining since 2021-22, reaching a five-year
low of 27.68% in 2023-24 and remained within the FRBM Act targets. This fall
in the liability-to-GSDP ratio is largely due to the consistent positive primary
balance maintained over the past three years.
• Interest payments grew by 9.63% in 2023-24, compared to -0.76% in 2022-23.
Interest payments as a percentage of revenue receipts remained nearly the same
during 2023-24 (7.78%) compared to 2022-23 (7.77%).
• The Domar gap has been positive since 2021–22, with the gap remaining at
5.99% in 2023–24, showing that economic growth continued to outpace interest
rates, thereby supporting debt sustainability. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 83=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
2.5%
4.4%
2.5%
3.4%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Jharkhand Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
4.8%
6.1%
2.7%
3.1%
6.6%
1.6%39.6B
43.5B
47.1B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.0%
2.2%
1.1%
0.1%
J1.8%
J3.3%
3.1%
0.3%
-4B
-3B
-2B
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
19.9B
27.4B
28.6B
8.6%
7.8%
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
27B
12B
12B
7.6%
5.8%
6.6%
J10.5B
6.6%
-13%
7%
27B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 85
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 86
KARNATAKA
Karnataka’s fiscal performance reflects a phase of adjustment marked by strong
revenue potential but rising
expenditure pressures. The State
continues to maintain fiscal
discipline within statutory limits,
supported by resilient tax
collections and a broad revenue
base. However, revenue and own-
revenue buoyancy have shown a
declining trend since 2021–22,
indicating that fiscal receipts are
expanding at a slower pace than
the economy. This underscores
the need for tighter revenue
monitoring to prevent arrears and improve realisation efficiency. The return to a
revenue deficit after several years of surplus reflects growing rigidity from committed
expenditure and interest liabilities. While developmental spending remains
significant, a relatively low share of expenditure on education and health limits
social outcomes. Capital spending quality has improved; yet persistent project
delays and cost overruns continue to weigh on expenditure efficiency. Debt
indicators remain within prudent levels, though rising liabilities highlight the
importance of maintaining fiscal balance through better expenditure management
and sustainable revenue growth.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2023-24, the State’s Capital Expenditure to Aggregate Expenditure (CE/AE)
ratio was higher than that of General Category States (GCS), reflecting better
quality of expenditure.
• Development Expenditure to Aggregate Expenditure (DE/AE) ratio was also
higher. However, the share of Education and Health as a share of AE remained
below the GCS average, indicating the need for greater priority in these sectors.
• Revenue Expenditure increased by 12.54% in 2023-24, as compared to previous
year, with Social Services increasing by 15.69%, and Economic Services by
17.28%. Capital Expenditure declined by 9.12% with a sharp increase in General
Services (79.90%).
• During 2019-20 to 2023-24, committed expenditure showed an increasing
trend, rising from ₹1,32,414 crore to ₹1,79,445 crore, though its share in Revenue
Expenditure fluctuated between 74% and 79%.
21%
24%27%
23%
20%
18%
21%
21%
15%
14%
16%
16%
34%
36%
35%
29%
11%7%
1%
11%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization Fiscal Prudence
Debt IndexDebt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 87
Revenue Mobilisation
• In 2023-24, the State’s own tax receipts grew by 13.78%, while its own non-
tax receipts declined by 5.73% over 2022-23, mainly due to lower receipts
under Other Administrative Services and related categories. The royalty under
non-Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical industries, which had increased
considerably during 2021-22, saw a decrease during 2022-23, but recorded an
increase again in 2023-24.
• About 76% of the Revenue Receipts during 2023-24 came from the State’s own
resources, while Central tax transfers and Grants-in-aid together contributed
24%. This is indicative that Karnataka’s fiscal position is largely influenced by its
own resources.
• During 2023-24, the major contributors of Tax revenue were Goods and Services
Tax (43 %), State Excise (21 %), Taxes on Sales, Trade etc. (13 %) and Stamps and
Registration Fees (12 %).
• Revenue and own revenue buoyancy remained positive throughout, though both
have shown a declining trend since 2021–22.
Fiscal Prudence
• The Fiscal Deficit-to-GSDP ratio, at 2.05% in the previous year, increased to
2.55% in 2023-24 due to the Revenue Deficit incurred by the State.
• The State maintained a Revenue Surplus since 2004-05, except in
2020-21 and 2021-22. But in 2023-24, the State again recorded a Revenue Deficit
of ₹9,271 crore.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The Debt-to-GSDP ratio declined in 2021-22 and 2022-23 but increased in 2023-
24, as outstanding liabilities grew faster than GSDP. The outstanding debt,
including off-budget borrowings, stood at 23.49% of GSDP in 2023-24.
• Interest payments on overall liabilities showed a rising trend over 2019-2023. The
ratio of interest payments to Revenue Receipts, increased to 13.66% in 2023-24,
indicating a higher interest burden. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 86=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the=average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
2.1% 2.3%
2.4%
2.5%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Karnatak~ Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.5% 6.2%
0.5%
0.6%
6.6%
1.6%
67.0B
75.7B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.1%
2.6%
2.0%
J0.1%
J0.6%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
17.3B
18.3B
23.1B
9.3%
12.4B
30.0B
13.9B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
21B
10B
12B
6.8% 6.6%5.8%
6.6%
3.8%
4.5%
-6B
14B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 88
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 89
KERALA
Kerala’s fiscal position reflects the challenge of balancing strong social and
developmental commitments
with limited fiscal flexibility.
While the State has consistently
maintained a focus on
developmental and social
spending, the efficiency and
scale of capital investment
remain relatively modest
compared to other major states,
limiting the growth of productive
assets. A significant portion of
revenue continues to be
absorbed by committed liabilities
such as salaries, pensions, and interest payments, restricting flexibility for new
initiatives. On the revenue side, Kerala has shown steady growth in its own-tax
collections, particularly from GST and sales-related taxes, and non-tax revenues
remain largely dependent on state lotteries. Despite these efforts, the State has
struggled to achieve revenue surplus targets, and fiscal deficits have persisted,
reflecting structural constraints in balancing expenditures with available resources.
Total liabilities have grown steadily, and while recent trends show improved real
growth relative to interest rates, the overall debt burden continues to constrain
long-term fiscal manoeuvrability.
Quality of Expenditure
• The Capital expenditure incurred over the last five years ranged between
1.04% and 1.67% of the GSDP. Utilisation of budget for Capital expenditure
ranged between 49.22% and 83.40% from 2019-20 to 2023-24 and it was
74.57% during 2023-24.
• The decline in Capital expenditure during 2023-24 has been under Economic
Services (2.51 %), Social Services (2.79 %) and General Services (19.43 %) as
compared to previous year. In 2019-20 and 2023-24, the percentage of Capital
Expenditure to Total Expenditure for the State was much lower than that of the
major states indicating a lower priority for Capital Expenditure by the State.
• The quantum of committed expenditure on salaries and wages, pension and
interest payments constituted 55 to 68% of revenue expenditure during 2019-20
to 2023-24.
6%10%9%
3%
33%
36%
46%
40%
10%
9%
13%
20%
35%
32%
25%
18%
16%13%
7%
19%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 90
Revenue Mobilisation
• State’s own tax revenue increased by 47.70% from 2019-20 to 2023-24. As a
percentage of Revenue Receipts, the State’s own tax revenue was 59.71% during
2023-24. State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) was the single largest source of
The State’s own tax revenue (41 to 42 %), followed by Taxes on Sales, Trade etc.
(37 to 39 %) during the period 2019-20 to 2023-24.
• The non-tax revenue increased by 33.3% during 2019-24 and by 8.12% during
2023-24 over the previous year. Receipts from State Lotteries is the major source
of non- tax revenue and its share in non-tax revenue ranged between 66% and
81% of non-tax revenue during the period from 2019-20 to 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• As per the KFR (Amendment) Act 2022, the Government had set an objective to
achieve Revenue Surplus during 2019-20 to 2023-24. However, the State was on
revenue deficit throughout the period 2019-20 to 2023-24. Revenue deficit as a
percentage of GSDP also increased from 0.90% in 2022-23 to 1.58% in 2023-24.
• The fiscal deficit during 2023-24 increased to 2.99% of GSDP from 2.5 %
in 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The total liabilities of the State Government increased by 51.01% 2019-20 to
2023-24 recording a growth of 51.01% during the last five years.
• During the pre-Covid year of 2019-20, the Domar gap turned negative
during COVID due to a collapse in real growth but reverted to a positive trend
post-2021 as growth outpaced the effective interest rate, indicating improving
debt sustainability. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 89=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
=
0.8%
1.2%
1.5%
1.3%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Kerala Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.4%
6.9%
1.5% 1.5%
6.6%
1.6%
68.6B
56.3B
72.8B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.6% 3.4%
2.5%
2.7%
2.2%
0.9%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
27.7B
30.7B
37.1B
18.0B19.0B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
20B
9%
12B
7.8%7.8%
7.0%6.6%
2.5%
2.3%
-13%
-3B
7%
17B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 91
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 92
MADHYA PRADESH
Madhya Pradesh’s fiscal position shows notable improvement in revenue
performance and consolidation
efforts, though underlying
structural pressures persist. The
State has maintained a revenue
surplus since 2021–22, supported
by stronger tax mobilisation and
improved buoyancy in own
revenues. Revenue receipts grew
faster than GSDP in 2023–24,
reflecting effective recovery in
GST, excise, and trade taxes.
However, revenue expenditure
continues to outpace economic
expansion, driven by rising pension and interest liabilities, which have pushed
committed expenditure to over 43% of total revenue spending. The State’s sustained
focus on capital outlay, nearly doubling in five years signals a strong infrastructure
push, though high debt repayments continue to constrain fiscal flexibility. Debt
levels remain within statutory limits, but the rising debt-to-GSDP ratio and persistent
primary deficit indicate limited progress in debt correction. While the fiscal deficit
remains within FRBM targets, the increasing reliance on borrowing to repay debt
and the growing interest burden highlight the need for durable expenditure
rationalisation and more efficient debt management to ensure fiscal sustainability.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2023-24, Revenue Expenditure as a percentage of GSDP increased by 0.21%,
and its growth rate (10.83%) exceeded the GSDP growth rate (9.37%) over the
previous year.
• Capital outlay almost doubled over five years to ₹56,539 crore, indicating a clear
improvement in asset creation and infrastructure push, supported by higher
allocations to roads and irrigation. Capital Outlay as a percentage of GSDP
increased from 3.15% in 2019-20 to 4.15% in 2023-24.
• Allocation to all the sectors such as development, social services, economic
services, education and health was higher in Madhya Pradesh during 2019-20
and 2023-24 as compared to the average allocation to these sectors by the
General Category States.
• Committed Expenditure rose from ₹57,430 crore (38.2% of RE) in 2019-20 to
₹95,313 crore (43.0% of RE) in 2023-24, increasing by ₹9,370 crore (10.9%) over
2022-23 due to higher Pensions (+11.6%) and Interest Payments (+18.7%).
24% 25%
34% 33%
17% 13%
15% 17%
15%
13%
14%
19%
31%
37%
35%
31%
12%11%
2%0%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 93
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue Receipts grew by 58.5% between 2019-20 and 2023-24. In 2019-20,
71% of receipts came from State Tax Revenue and 29% from Non-Tax Revenue
and Grants-in-Aid, while in 2023-24, the share of State Tax Revenue increased to
77% and Non-Tax Revenue and Grants-in-Aid together contributed 23%.
• Revenue buoyancy relative to GSDP increased from 0.69 in 2022-23 to 1.57 in
2023-24, while the State’s own revenue buoyancy increased from 0.60 to 2.34,
reflecting strong government efforts in revenue mobilisation.
• Own Tax Revenue of the State increased by 62.52% during 2019-24 with major
contributions from State Goods and Services Tax (41.65%), Taxes on Sales,
Trades, etc. (19.69%) and State Excise (14.91%).
• Non-Tax Revenue contributed 7–10% of total Revenue Receipts between
2019-20 and 2023-24, with fluctuations. In 2023-24, it rose marginally by
₹48 crore, mainly from Non-Ferrous Mining & Metallurgical Industries (46.0%),
Education, Sports, Art & Culture (12.8%), Crop Husbandry (9.8%), and Interest
Receipts (9.7%).
Fiscal Prudence
• The State had a revenue deficit in 2019-21 (₹2,801 crore in 2019-20 and ₹18,356
crore in 2020-21), but has been in revenue surplus since 2021-22. In 2023-24,
the surplus reached ₹12,488 crore, rising to 0.92% of GSDP from 0.33% in the
previous year.
• Primary Deficit, showing excess of primary expenditure over non-debt receipts,
declined to ₹21,386 crore (1.57% of GSDP) in 2023-24 from ₹21,749 crore (1.74%
of GSDP) in 2022-23.
• The State remained within the targets set by the 15
th
Finance Commission in
2023-24, with a Fiscal Deficit of ₹44,485 crore, representing 3.26% of GSDP and
15.95% of Total Expenditure.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt-to-GSDP ratio increased from 28.32% in 2022-23 to 29.17% in 2023-24, up
0.85%, and grew 4.32% over 2019-24, remaining within the MPFRBM Act ceiling.
• The ratio of Interest Payments to Revenue Receipts ranged between 9.54%
and 10.87% during 2019-24. It remained stable from 2021-22 to 2023-24 and
increased slightly from 9.54% in 2022-23 to 9.87% in 2023-24.
• The Domar gap remained positive during 2019-24, except in 2020-21, suggesting
public debt would stabilise above zero. However, despite being positive from
2021-22 to 2023-24, the State ran a Primary Deficit and 33–37% of debt receipts
were used for debt servicing, indicating growth alone is insufficient to manage
debt sustainably. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 92=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
2.5%
4.3%
3.7%3.6%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Madhya Pradesh
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.1% 5.9%
1.4% 1.6%
6.6%
1.6%44.0B
47.3B
60.7B
-10.0%
10.0B
30.0B
50.0B
70.0B
90.0B
110.0%
130.0%
150.0%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
22.5B
23.4B
29.8B
8.5%9.5%
30.0B
13.9B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
2.4%
2.9%
3.4%
J1.3%
J1.0%
J0.3%
3.1%
0.3%
-2B
0%
2%
4%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
16B
11B
12B
7.5% 7.4%
6.3%
6.6%
4.6%4.5%
-5B
5%
15B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 94
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 95
MAHARASHTRA
Maharashtra’s fiscal position in 2023–24 reflects strength in revenue mobilisation
and fiscal autonomy. The State’s
dependence on its own resources
underscores strong fiscal
capacity, yet tax buoyancy has
weakened, and revenue arrears
continue to constrain collections.
A gradual reduction in committed
expenditure has created fiscal
room for capital and
developmental priorities and
higher allocations to social and
economic sectors. However,
rising subsidies and recurring
welfare commitments risk narrowing future flexibility. While fiscal and debt indicators
remain within prudent limits, the growing primary deficit and large share of
borrowings used for repayments limit fiscal space for new investments. Overall,
Maharashtra shows stable but cautious fiscal health marked by controlled deficits
and developmental orientation, yet emerging fiscal rigidity from rising welfare
schemes and inflexible expenditure.
Quality of Expenditure
• Committed (salaries, pensions, interest) plus inflexible expenditure together
constituted 62.4% of revenue expenditure, down from 72.3% five years ago,
giving the State more space for capital and developmental spending.
• Subsidies surged to ₹48,053 crore (10.8% of revenue expenditure), up from 9.5%
five years ago absorbing a rising share (23%) of non-committed outlays and
weakening allocative efficiency
12, 13
.
• Social sector expenditure grew to 39.7% of total expenditure, economic services
to 26.2% indicating priority to development sectors, with capital outlay at 13.9%
(₹72,573 crore)—showing clear improvement in priority for asset creation versus
the past.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Over the previous year, revenue receipts rose by 6.14% to ₹4,30,596 crore and at
a CAGR of 11.04% over last 5 years. The ratio to GSDP declined (from 11.13% to
10.65%) over the last year. Own tax revenue expanded 8.96%; non-tax revenue
jumped by 24.3%.
12 The recent launch of large welfare schemes such as the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana (`1,500 per month to women; annual
cost about `46,000 crore) has added to recurring revenue expenditure
13 https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/4/51290.pdf
16% 14% 15% 17%
27%
26% 26% 24%
19%
16% 16% 16%
22%
32%
35% 34%
15% 13%
9% 10%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 96
• State’s own taxes and non-tax revenues together provide 75% of revenue, with
the share of grants-in-aid falling to 8.3% (from 15.5% five years ago), showing
reduced dependence on central transfers. Tax buoyancy (with respect to GSDP)
decreased to 0.899, indicating moderate responsiveness.
• Arrears in revenue assessment remain substantial, with GST and VAT cases
pending totalling ₹5,865 crore at year-end; revenue realisation faces bottlenecks,
impacting fiscal consolidation.
• The return from public sector investments remains low, averaging only 0.03%
during 2019-24 while borrowing cost was 6.4%, highlighting quality concerns.
Fiscal Prudence
• Fiscal deficit was contained at 2.24% (well within FRBM cap of 3%), but revenue
deficit rose to ₹13,754 crore despite higher receipts, meaning the State failed to
achieve a revenue surplus in any of the last five years.
• Subsidy volume continues to increase, and off-budget borrowings by PSUs
(₹10,135 crore) and outstanding guarantees (₹85,897 crore) may add to contingent
liabilities. Unfunded liabilities (pending pension/NPS, unadjusted grants) pose
risks to long-term stability.
• The government overbudgeted as actual expenditure fell short of provision by
nearly ₹1.44 lakh crore (about 20%), while unnecessary supplementary funding
was sought. Savings and excesses continue to be flagged for regularisation and
better forecasting.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt to GSDP rose slightly to 18.11% in 2023-24 (up from 17.42% previous year),
still well below the 15
th
FC ceiling but showing gradual increase due to rising
deficits. Most debt receipts continue to go toward repayments.
• Debt sustainability is supported by a favourable growth-interest differential
(Domar gap) except for the COVID years; the primary deficit is rising, pointing
to a higher reliance on borrowing for routine expenditure.
• Off-budget borrowings and outstanding guarantees (₹85,897 crore) require
attention; contingent liabilities are sizable though no guarantees were invoked
in 2023-24.
• The interest payment on overall debt as a percentage of GSDP decreased from
1.26% in 2019-20 to 1.13% in 2023-24, and as a percentage of revenue expenditure
decreased from 11.18% to 10.27% in 2023-24, which indicates a sustainable debt
trajectory. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 95=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and=the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
=
1.1% 1.1%
1.5%
1.7%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Maharashtr~ Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
7.4%
7.6%
0.6%0.5%
6.6%
1.6%
99.7B
66.9B
75.1B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
1.8%
0.9%1.9%
0.7%
J0.5%
0.1%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
18.0B17.3B18.1B
12.2B
10.3B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
20B
16B
11B12B
8.1% 7.9% 6.9%
6.6%
J0.4%4.5%
-10%
0%
10B
20B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 97
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 98
ODISHA
Odisha’s fiscal position remains stable and prudent, marked by consistent compliance
with FRBM norms and a healthy
revenue surplus. The State’s
finances demonstrate strong
control over deficits and a
declining debt burden, reflecting
sound macro-fiscal management.
Revenue performance has been
robust, supported by buoyant
own-source revenues, particularly
from mining, excise, and GST,
while non-tax revenue has
surged, driven by mineral-based
receipts and dividends from state
PSUs. Dependence on central transfers has moderated as the State’s fiscal capacity
strengthens. Expenditure patterns show an increasing orientation toward
infrastructure and economic services, complemented by steady growth in social
sector spending, especially in health. However, the relatively low allocation to
education compared to peer states signals the need for more balanced social
investment. Committed expenditure has been contained at moderate levels,
providing fiscal space for developmental priorities. A positive Domar gap, coupled
with declining debt ratios and stable interest obligations, indicates that economic
growth continues to outpace borrowing costs. Overall, Odisha presents a picture of
a fiscally resilient state with growing self-reliance, improved debt sustainability, and
expanding development orientation.
Quality of Expenditure
• Revenue Expenditure increased by 13.6% in 2023-24, driven by higher spending
on Social Services (20.7%) and Economic Services (43.4%), even as outlays on
General Services declined by 12.3%.
• Capital Expenditure rose sharply by 29.8% compared to previous year, with strong
growth in Economic Services (38.2%) and Social Services (12.2%), indicating the
State’s emphasis on infrastructure and sectoral development.
• In 2023-24, the State spent 13.2% of its total expenditure on education, below
the Major States’ average of 14.4% while expenditure on health stood higher at
8.2% compared to 5.7% for these States.
• Committed expenditure on interest payments, salaries, and pensions accounted
for 36% of revenue expenditure in 2023-24, growing at an average annual rate of
6.8% between FY 2019-20 and FY 2023-24.
26% 26%
16%
20%
14% 15%
23%
22%
20% 16% 20% 16%
35%
33%
27% 26%
5%
9%
15% 16%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 99
Revenue Mobilisation
• State’s own revenue buoyancy with regards to GSDP increased from 0.68% in
2019–20 to 1.65% in 2023–24, driven mainly by higher collections from SGST,
State Excise, and Sales Taxes.
• Non-tax revenue increased sharply by 261.9% from ₹14,647 crore in 2019–20 to
₹53,011 crore in 2023–24, with a 24.1% increase over the previous year due to
higher receipts from mining, coal, lignite, and state PSUs’ dividends.
Fiscal Prudence
• Over the past five years (2019–20 to 2023–24), the State has consistently
achieved all fiscal targets set under the Finance Commission and FRBM Act,
maintaining a steady revenue surplus and prudent deficit levels.
• Fiscal deficit declined by 3.1% in 2023–24, remaining at 1.73% of GSDP, well within
the FRBM target, mainly due to an increase in Revenue Surplus.
• Revenue surplus registered 58.11% increase over 2022-23, indicating stronger
revenue growth.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt to GSDP ratio decreased from 23.46% in 2019-20 to 14.39% in 2023-24,
indicating the growth of the economy is outpacing debt accumulation.
• Interest payments as a percentage of revenue receipts declined from 5.97% in
2019-20 to 2.88% in 2023-24 indicating a lower percentage of revenue is being
consumed by interest obligations.
• During 2019-24, the Domar gap was mostly positive, reflecting that real economic
growth outpaced the real interest burden. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 98=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth=rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
3.5%
4.8%
3.3%
4.7%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Odisha Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.1%
6.5%
2.9%
6.0%
6.6%
1.6%
41.6B
51.5B
59.8B60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
1.7%
2.0%
2.1%
J1.9%
J2.8%
J2.7%
3.1%
0.3%
-7B
-6B
-5B
-4B
-3B
-2B
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
16.1B
21.7B
15.7B
5.8%
3.7%
30.0B
13.9B
2%
12B
22B
32B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
29B
3%
12B12B
6.0%
4.6%
6.6%
5.2%
7.1%
-5B
5%
15B
25B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 100
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 101
PUNJAB
Punjab’s fiscal health reflects a state balancing developmental priorities with the
challenges of high committed
liabilities and structural fiscal
pressures. The State has
continued to invest significantly
in economic and social sectors,
focusing on infrastructure,
agriculture, education, health,
and welfare of vulnerable groups,
underscoring its commitment to
inclusive growth. However, a
large share of revenue is absorbed
by salaries, pensions, and interest
payments, limiting flexibility for
discretionary spending. While tax revenues, particularly GST collections, have
strengthened over recent years, non-tax revenues and central grants have grown
modestly, pointing to constrained revenue diversification. Persistent revenue and
fiscal deficits, alongside elevated debt levels, indicate ongoing structural imbalances,
making Punjab’s finances sensitive to external shocks and limiting the State’s room
to finance new developmental initiatives.
Quality of Expenditure
• The total developmental expenditure increased from ₹0.51 lakh crore in
2019–20 to ₹0.61 lakh crore in 2023–24, marking an overall rise of nearly 19.6
% over the five-year period. Social and economic services comprised 27%
and 21% respectively.
• The total capital expenditure shows higher spending in Economic Services
(46%) and Social Services (45%). Major areas of investment include agriculture,
rural development, irrigation, energy, transport, education, health, and welfare
of vulnerable groups, reflecting the State’s focus on infrastructure development
and human capital enhancement.
• The share of committed expenditure in revenue receipts remained high, averaging
around 78% during 2019–24, indicating limited fiscal flexibility. Although it
declined from 81% in 2019–20 to 74% in 2021–22, it rose again to 80% in 2023–24
due to increased spending on salaries, pensions, and interest payments.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Between 2019–20 and 2023–24, Punjab’s total revenue receipts rose by 44.8%,
from ₹61,575 crore to ₹89,192 crore. Tax revenue surged by 67.8%, while non-tax
revenue and grants-in-aid grew marginally by 8.7% and 2.8%, respectively.
0%3%0%
14%
47%
50%
66%
52%
2%
16%
9%10%
31%
0%
0%0%
19%
31%
26%24%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 102
• Goods and Services Tax (GST) has consistently anchored tax revenue, growing
by 63.4% over five years. In 2023-24, GST accounted for 40% of the State’s tax
revenue, while General Services contributed 64% of non-tax revenue. Grants-in-
aid formed 16% of total revenue receipts, underscoring moderate central support
amid rising own-source collections.
Fiscal Prudence
• Over the past five years, Punjab’s fiscal trajectory has been marked by persistent
revenue deficits and elevated fiscal deficits, reflecting structural imbalances in
its public finances. Revenue deficit rose steadily from ₹5,307 crore in 2019–20 to
₹11,738 crore in 2022–23, breaching 1.6% of GSDP, before a projected correction
to ₹8,295 crore (1.03%) in 2023–24. Fiscal deficit followed a similar pattern,
peaking at ₹30,452 crore (4.18% of GSDP) in 2022–23, well above the normative
3% threshold under the PFRBM Act.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Total liabilities rose from ₹2.29 lakh crore in 2019–20 to ₹3.55 lakh crore in
2023–24—an increase of over ₹1.25 lakh crore (55% growth in five years). Despite
GSDP growing steadily, liabilities as a percentage of GSDP remained elevated,
hovering between 43% and 48%. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 10N=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
0.9%
0.5%
1.3%
1.0%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Punjab Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.2%
6.2%
1.5% 0.9%
6.6%
1.6%
70.0B
49.5B 61.1B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.1% 3.1%
5.0%
2.1%
2.6%
3.8%3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10B
11B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
31.6B
41.3B
46.1B
26.2B
22.7B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
45B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
16B
11B12B
8.7% 8.4%
7.2%
6.6% 1.9%
4.3%
-7B
3%
13B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 103
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 104
RAJASTHAN
Rajasthan’s fiscal health remains under pressure, marked by rising deficits, high
debt levels, and limited fiscal
space for developmental
spending. Despite a notable
increase in total and capital
expenditure particularly in
economic and social sectors, the
State’s expenditure quality
remains constrained by the
dominance of committed
liabilities and low efficiency in
capital creation. A significant
portion of revenue receipts
continues to be absorbed by
interest payments, salaries, and pensions, leaving little room for discretionary
spending. On the revenue side, while own tax collections have shown steady growth,
the pace has lagged behind other major states, and non-tax revenues have weakened
due to falling petroleum royalties. With the Debt-to-GSDP ratio persistently above
35% and most borrowings being used for debt servicing rather than investment,
Rajasthan faces structural fiscal rigidity. The recurring breach of FRBM targets and
sustained revenue and primary deficits reflect a pattern of fiscal imbalance that
constrains flexibility and heightens vulnerability to future shocks.
Quality of Expenditure
• The state’s total expenditure increased by 39.19% between 2019-20 and 2023-
24. As a share of GSDP, it remained within 17.62%–19.63% during this period.
• Capital expenditure increased by 34.59%, driven by a sharp rise in Economic
Services (56.55%) and an increase in Social Services (12.42%), while General
Services declined by 24.98%, compared to previous year.
• Capital expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure was below the major
states’ average in 2019-20, with the gap widening by 2023-24, while its allocation
to Education and Health & Family Welfare remained above the average and
increased over the same period.
• In 2023-24, committed expenditure was 62.34% of revenue receipts, lower than
66.71% in 2019-20 but higher than 59.37% in the previous year. This indicates that
a significant portion of revenue receipts was spent on committed expenditure.
34%
30% 33% 32%
22%
23%
28%
22%
5%
3%
6%
8%
39%
27%
27%
23%
0%
17%
5%
15%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 105
Revenue Mobilisation
• During the last five years Revenue Receipts grew at a CAGR of 9.75%,
however, as a percentage of GSDP, they decreased from 14% in 2019-20 to 13.30%
in 2023-24.
• The State’s own tax revenue increased from ₹59,245 crore in 2019-20 to
₹94,086 crore in 2023-24, growing at a CAGR of 12.26%. The growth rate during
2023-24 was 7.72% over the previous year and was lower than the average of
major States (10.58%).
• Major contributors in 2023-24 were SGST (40.41%), Sales/Trade Taxes (24.95%),
and State Excise (14.06%).
• Non-Tax Revenue accounted for 9–11% of the State’s total revenue receipts
during 2019-20 to 2023-24. In 2023-24, they declined by 9.17% from the previous
year, mainly due to a significant fall in petroleum-related receipts from royalties
on crude oil.
• The State’s own revenue buoyancy to GSDP turned negative during
2019-20 and 2020-21. The State’s own revenue buoyancy to GSDP decreased
significantly during 2023-24 in comparison to the previous year (1.13%) and
remained at 0.36%.
Fiscal Prudence
• For the eleventh consecutive year, the State failed to meet its FRBM Act targets,
with the revenue deficit rising and the fiscal deficit increasing further in 2023-24
compared to 2022-23.
• Fiscal deficit of the State remained more than the targeted three% of GSDP
during last five years. Revenue deficit increased by 23.7%, while fiscal deficit
increased by 28.52% from 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The Debt-to-GSDP ratio stayed above 35% over the last five years, with over 87%
of borrowings used to repay existing debt and interest. This high ratio indicates
a substantial debt burden, financial vulnerability, and limited fiscal flexibility.
• The ratio of Interest Payments to Total Revenue Receipts of the State was 16.79%
for 2023-24, which was higher than the previous year (15.69%).
• Primary balances increased from ₹14,011 crore in 2019-20 to ₹31,452 crore in
2023-24 and remained negative in the last five years, indicating that debt is on
an unsustainable path.
• Except in 2021-22 and 2022-23, overall debt grew faster than nominal GSDP,
indicating that in 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2023-24, the State’s debt burden
worsened. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 10Q=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth=rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
2.6%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Rajasthan Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.3%
6.4%
2.0%
1.5%6.6%1.6%
51.4B
55.0B
55.5B60.7B
-10.0%
10.0B
30.0B
50.0B
70.0B
90.0B
110.0%
130.0%
150.0%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.1%
3.8%
3.8%
0.5%
3.2%
2.3%
3.1%
0.3%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
24.0B
34.2B
37.2B
15.7B
15.7B
30.0B
13.9B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
17B
12B
12B
8.1%
6.8%
6.6%
1.7%
5.4%
-10%
0%
10B
20B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 106
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 107
TAMIL NADU
Tamil Nadu’s fiscal profile shows a continued focus on developmental expenditure,
with Social and Economic
Services forming the bulk of both
revenue and capital outlays,
while capital spending remains
relatively modest and below
planned targets. Revenue
mobilisation strengthened
through own tax collections,
supported by non-tax revenues
and grants, reflecting fiscal
capacity. However, the state
continues to face revenue and
fiscal deficits, highlighting
ongoing pressures on fiscal consolidation. High interest payments and growing
liabilities constrain fiscal flexibility, even as debt relative to GSDP shows slight
moderation. The state demonstrates strong developmental orientation and revenue
generation, but persistent fiscal and debt pressures limit room for new investments
and capital expansion.
Quality of Expenditure
Between 2019–20 and 2023–24, Developmental Revenue Expenditure grew
steadily, led by Social Services and Economic Services, reflecting welfare priorities
and post-pandemic recovery. General Services also increased consistently due to
administrative spending. Developmental Capital Expenditure rose, with Economic
Services holding the largest share. General Services continues to constitute the
smallest share.
• Developmental Revenue Expenditure expanded steadily between 2019–20 and
2023–24, with a sharp rise in Social Services reflecting stronger commitment
to welfare and human capital formation. Economic Services also increased
markedly until 2022–23, indicating post-pandemic recovery efforts, though
growth plateaued in 2023–24. General Services too recorded a steady increase,
driven by administrative and governance-related expenditure.
• Developmental Capital expenditure has also risen steadily between 2019–20
and 2023–24, with economic Services consistently accounting for the largest
share, though its proportion declined from 63.1% in 2019-20 to 51.0% in 2023-24.
Social Services peaked in 2021-22 at 36.9% of total capital expenditure. General
Services, in contrast, remained a small and relatively stable share (~2–3%).
17%16%
28%
21%
25%27%
30%
27%
14%10%
10%
15%
38%
34%
32%
26%
7%
13%
0%
11%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 108
• While capital outlay stands at ~2% of GSDP, the expenditure has fallen short of
budgeted estimates for 2023-24.
Revenue Mobilisation
• The state’s own tax revenue as a share of GSDP has risen over time from 5.82%
in 2019-20 to 6.15% in 2023-24, with the state’s share of union taxes increasing
by ~75%, and the state’s own tax revenue rising by 55.6%.
• Tax revenue constitutes the major source of revenue for the government
accounting for ~81% of total receipts, with taxes of commodities and services
other than GST constituting the largest share with ~33% for 2023-24.
• Under non-tax revenue, the state receives the largest share from interest receipts,
dividends and profits. Grants-in-aid also contribute ~10% to the state’s overall
revenue receipts in 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• As per the Tamil Nadu FRBM Act, 2003 and the Tamil Nadu Medium Term Fiscal
Policy Strategy, the state is expected to eliminate revenue deficit by 2025-26.
However, the revenue deficit for the current year has risen, recording a rate of
24.59% over the previous year. The state continues to record a revenue deficit
since 2019-20.
• As per the Tamil Nadu FRBM Act, 2003, the state has set a target to achieve
a fiscal deficit of 3% of GSDP by 31
st
March, 2025. In the current year, the state
has experienced an increase in fiscal deficit from ₹81,886 crore to ₹90,430 crore
which now constitutes 3.32% of GSDP. The ratio however has experienced a
decline from 3.46% to 3.32% in the current year.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The targets set as per the Tamil Nadu FRBM Act is to maintain a ratio of total
outstanding debt to GDP of 25.2% since 2015-16. In the current year this ratio
stands at 25.86%. Total liabilities to GSDP, however, stand at 28.38% of GSDP in
the current year, which is a decline over the previous year of 29.25%.
• Interest payments accounted for a significant portion of the state’s committed
expenditure for the year, representing 25.2% of the total, highlighting a high
debt service cost.
• The state’s outstanding liabilities registered an increase of 11.6% compared to the
previous year, while public debt recorded a higher growth of 14.2%, reflecting
continued borrowing to finance expenditures and manage fiscal requirements. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 10T=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of=GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
1.7%
1.3%
1.8%
1.7%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Tamil Nadu Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
6.5%
6.3%
0.9%0.7%
6.6%
1.6%
68.4B
67.0B
73.0B
60.7B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
70B
80B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.5%
2.9%
3.4%
0.6%
1.4%
1.5%
3.1%
0.3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
17.9B
22.6B
28.9B
16.6B
19.2B
30.0B
13.9B
0%
5%
10B
15B
20B
25B
30B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
16B
13B
12B
9.1%
8.8%
7.7%
6.6%
0.6%
2.5%5.6%
-10%
10B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 109
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 110
TELANGANA
Telangana’s fiscal performance in 2023–24 reflects rising development expenditure
indicated by increasing allocation
on Social and Economic Services
and a strong increase in capital
outlays, indicating sustained
emphasis on infrastructure
creation and welfare. The state’s
own tax revenues from the bulk
of receipts and non-tax revenues
expanding, though the share of
central grants continues to
decline. Under fiscal indicators
the state maintains a small
revenue surplus and a fiscal
deficit broadly within statutory limits, despite an uptick in borrowing needs. Debt
levels have risen steadily, marginally exceeding the prescribed FRBM ceiling. The
gradual improvement in expenditure quality and adherence to fiscal discipline
underscore a growth-supportive fiscal stance, albeit with emerging pressures from
the need to improve its revenue mobilisation capacity.
Quality of Expenditure
• Between 2019–20 and 2023–24, Developmental Revenue Expenditure showed
a shift in composition and scale. Social Services increased, maintaining a
steady share of total revenue expenditure around 38–39%, signalling sustained
investment in welfare and human capital. Economic Services recorded a sharper
rise, more than doubling over the period, and increasing its share from roughly
22% to 35%, reflecting increased focus on infrastructure development and
growth-oriented interventions.
• Developmental Capital Expenditure recorded a significant increase between
2019–20 and 2023–24, rising from ₹16,860 crore to ₹43,918 crore, a growth of
over 160%, reflecting a strong push on asset creation.
• During 2019-20 to 2023-24, Economic Services dominated developmental
capital expenditure, increasing from ₹14,449 crore to ₹33,937 crore, while Social
Services rose from ₹1,765 crore to ₹9,116 crore, with General Services remaining a
minimal component, reflecting limited administrative capital requirements.
25%21%23%26%
23%27%
34%28%
13%11%
12%
14%
37%
32%
29%
24%
3%
9%
2%
8%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 111
Revenue Mobilisation
• Telangana’s total revenue receipts increased steadily from ₹1,02,543 crore in
2019–20 to ₹1,69,293 crore in 2023–24, maintaining around 11–12% of GSDP,
reflecting consistent revenue mobilisation; however, in the current year, there is
a slight dip to 11.27%.
• The state’s own tax revenue forms the bulk (~80%) of receipts up from 74% in the
previous year. Taxes on Commodities & Services, GST, and income taxes account
for the major components in the current year, indicating a diversified tax base.
The state’s non-tax revenues have experienced a stronger CAGR of 33% annually
since 2019-20 whereas tax revenues have grown by 13.4%.
• Non-tax revenue, mainly from interest receipts, dividends, and profits, has grown
steadily, contributing to overall revenue stability, while grants-in-aid from the
Union account for a smaller share (~6%) and are on a declining trend.
Fiscal Prudence
• Under the Telangana Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act,
2005, the Government of Telangana presented the Medium-Term Fiscal Policy
and Strategy Statement alongside the 2023-24 State Budget, committing to
maintaining a revenue surplus and keeping the fiscal deficit within a 3% limit.
• The state has recorded a revenue surplus of ₹779 crore and a Fiscal Deficit of
`49,978 crore, which are 0.05% and 3.33% GSDP, respectively, for 2023-24.
• The revenue deficit stood at ₹6,254 crore in 2019–20 and turned into a revenue
surplus of ₹5,943 crore in 2022–23. On the other hand, the fiscal deficit rose
from 3.29% to 3.33% of GSDP.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• As per the Telangana Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM/
MTFP) Act, 2005, the outstanding debt and other liabilities were to remain
below 33.10% of GSDP for 2023–24. However, the state recorded outstanding
debt and other liabilities of ₹5,17,659 crore, equivalent to 34.47% of GSDP, slightly
exceeding the prescribed limit.
• Telangana’s outstanding liabilities have increased steadily over the past five
years, rising from 24% of GSDP 27% of GSDP, reflecting continued borrowing to
finance development and fiscal requirements.
• Public debt forms the largest component of total liabilities, increasing from 20%
of GSDP in 2019–20 to 23% of GSDP in 2023–24, while balances in the Public
Account have remained relatively stable at around 4% of GSDP.
• The steady rise in total liabilities, despite a slight decline in the debt-to-GSDP
ratio in 2023–24, indicates ongoing reliance on market borrowings, including
₹49,618 crore of market loans raised during the year, to meet expenditure needs. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 11M=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
1.7%
3.2%
2.6%
1.4%
2.9%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Telangan~ Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
7.5%
8.2%
1.2%
1.5%
6.6%
1.6%
70.3B 72.1B
80.1B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
1.9%
3.1%
2.5%
J0.1%
J0.5%
J0.5%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
15.8B
23.0B
27.2B
12.4B13.7B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
19B
12B12B
9.5%
7.6% 6.8%
6.6%
12.3B
4.7%
-10%
10B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 112
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 113
UTTAR PRADESH
Uttar Pradesh’s fiscal position reflects a pattern of formal prudence coexisting with
structural rigidity in expenditure
and limited fiscal flexibility. The
State has maintained compliance
with FRBM limits, recording a
revenue surplus and containing
its fiscal deficit within statutory
thresholds. However, expenditure
rigidity continues to weigh on
fiscal space, with over two-thirds
of revenue outlay absorbed by
committed and inflexible
expenditure, constraining
allocation to social and
developmental sectors. Despite higher capital spending relative to other General
Category States, efficiency concerns persist as a share of funds remains tied up in
incomplete projects and low-return investments. Revenue mobilisation has
strengthened through buoyant tax performance and higher central transfers, yet
the weak non-tax base and heavy dependence on devolution restrict fiscal autonomy.
While the debt-to-GSDP ratio remains within sustainable limits, growing extra-
budget borrowings by State PSUs and rising contingent liabilities point to hidden
fiscal risks. Overall, Uttar Pradesh’s fiscal stance balances macro-stability with
underlying vulnerabilities that call for institutional reforms in transparency,
expenditure prioritisation, and investment efficiency.
Quality of Expenditure
• The ratio of capital expenditure to total expenditure increased from 16.62% in
the year 2019-20 to 20.16% in the year 2023-24 and was higher than the General
Category States’ average in both periods.
• The ratio of expenditure on Education to the Total Expenditure decreased from
15.34% in the year 2019-20 to 13.16% in the year 2023-24 and was below GCS’s
average during both years.
• The ratio of expenditure on Health and Family Welfare to total Expenditure
decreased from 5.53% in the year 2019-20 to 5.27% in the year 2023-24 and was
below GCS’s average during 2023-24.
• Committed expenditure (interest, salaries, pensions) constitutes 56% of total
revenue expenditure in 2023-24, down from 62% in 2019-20, but together with
inflexible expenditure, makes up 71%.
17%16%
28%
21%
25%27%
30%
27%
14%10%
10%
15%
38%
34%
32%
26%
7%
13%
0%
11%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 114
• Government returns on investments in PSUs remain extremely low (0.03%) versus
average borrowing rates (over 7%), indicating inefficient asset deployment and
persistent capital locked in loss-making or incomplete projects (over ₹4,444
crore blocked in incomplete capital works).
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue Receipts grew by 11.64% in 2023–24, driven by higher Central GST
(27.75%), Income Tax transfers (25.97%), and Own Tax Revenue (10.94%). They
recorded a CAGR of 6.19% during 2019-2024.
• State’s own tax revenue buoyancy ratio with respect to GSDP had a fluctuating
trend during the period 2019-24. It was highest 1.19 in the year 2022-23 lowest
0.30 during the year 2019-20.
• State Own Tax Revenue rose by 11% in 2023–24, driven by higher receipts from
State GST, State Excise, Stamp and Registration Fees, and Taxes on Vehicles.
Over 2019–24, it increased by 57.24%.
• Central transfers (tax devolution and grants) now form 55% of revenue receipts.
Non-tax revenue is low (₹14,249 crore) and fell markedly short of projections
(down 40% from budget expectations).
Fiscal Prudence
• The state maintained the fiscal deficit at 3.17% of GSDP (below the UPFRBM
ceiling of 3.39%), and the revenue surplus at ₹36,013 crore, comfortably above
minimum compliance standards.
• Extra-budget borrowings by state PSUs reached ₹38,464 crore and are not fully
reflected in reported debt, creating hidden fiscal risks.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Outstanding public liabilities amounted to 29.58% of GSDP, and increased by
15.94% over previous year.
• The percentage of interest payment on public debt to revenue receipts decreased
from 12.64% during 2020-21 to 10.15% during 2023-24.
• Debt sustainability analysis shows that, except for 2020-21 when the pandemic
caused a negative growth-interest differential, positive debt sustainability
indicators have held up with the Domar gap (growth minus interest rate)
adequate to absorb primary deficits, keeping the debt-to-GSDP ratio on a
broadly declining or stable trend in recent years. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 11P=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
5.1%
2.6% 3.5%
4.1%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Uttar Pradesh Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
7.4%
7.6%
1.9%
0.6%
6.6%
1.6%
44.7B 44.5B 44.5B60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.1%
2.2%
2.8%
J2.2%
J1.7%
J1.6%
3.1%
0.3%
-4B
-3B
-2B
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
28.0B
31.4B
28.5B
9.7%10.3B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
21B
15B
12B
7.4%
7.0%
7.2%
6.6%
4.0%6.1%
-11%
-1B
9%
19B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 115
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 116
WEST BENGAL
West Bengal’s
14
fiscal position remains broadly stable, marked by a marginal increase
in developmental expenditure
and improved revenue
performance. Developmental
spending increased by about 15%
between 2021–22 and 2023–24,
with capital expenditure on
social and economic services
nearly doubling, reflecting a
growing focus on infrastructure
and social capital. However,
revenue expenditure has grown
modestly, suggesting limited
flexibility for productive
investments. The state’s own revenues have shown robust growth, 28% in two years,
driven by strong tax and non-tax collections. Fiscal indicators remain within the
FRBM limits, with deficits on a declining trajectory. Yet, high debt levels at around
38% of GSDP and rising interest payments, accounting for one-fifth of revenue
receipts, continue to weigh on fiscal sustainability.
Quality of Expenditure
• Total Developmental expenditure under revenue and capital has risen from ₹1.5
lakh crore in 2021–22 to ₹1.71 lakh crore in 2023-24, which is a rise of nearly 15%
in two years, reflecting sustained prioritisation of growth and welfare sectors.
• Capital expenditure on Social and Economic Services together doubled from
₹16,939 crore in 2021–22 to ₹29,171 crore. This indicates shift towards infrastructure,
connectivity, and social capital formation.
• Revenue expenditure on Social and Economic Services, however, has remained
almost stagnant from `1.3 lakh crore in 2021-22 to `1.4 lakh crore in 2023-24,
growing by only 7% over the two-year period.
Revenue Mobilisation
• The state’s own revenue, comprising tax and non-tax, has grown strongly at 28%
during the period from 2021-22 to 2023-24. Major sources of tax revenue for the
government are SGST and sales tax.
• The state’s non-tax revenue has doubled over the same two-year period from
2021-22 to 2023-24, growing from ₹1,690 crore to ₹3,238 crore.
14 https://agwb.cag.gov.in/userfiles/files/agaewb/accounts/Budget_Review_2023_24.pdf
22%
27%
33%32%
10%
12%
15%
11%
19%
16%
19%
20%
25%21%
22%
16%
24%25%
11%
21%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 117
Fiscal Prudence
• As per the West Bengal FRBM Act 2010, the state has set a target of revenue
surplus and fiscal deficit of up to 3% of GSDP by 2024-25, the values for the
current year are 3.1% and 1.6% respectively.
• The revenue deficit, which had risen sharply post-COVID from 1.57% in 2019–20
to 2.27% in 2020–21, has since followed a declining trajectory and now stands at
1.6%.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• As per the West Bengal FRBM Act, 2010, the state aims to maintain its debt
stock at 34.3% of GSDP by FY 2024–25; however, it currently stands higher at
37.67% as per the 2023–24 budget estimates.
• Interest payments have grown by 7% since the previous year surging to ₹42,620
from ₹40,017 crore. These payments collectively account for 20% of revenue
receipts.
• Outstanding liabilities for the period have risen by 10% from the previous year
and now amount to ₹6.4 lakh crore. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 11S=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 18 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
1.4%
2.0%
1.3%
1.4%
2.9%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
West Bengal Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
5.5% 5.5%
0.3% 0.1%
6.6%
1.6% 41.1B
44.1B
46.5B
60.7B
-10%
10B
30B
50B
70B
90B
110%
130%
150%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.8%
3.0%
3.3%
2.4%
0.9%
1.8%
3.1%
0.3%
-1B
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
38.7B
35.7B
38.2B
19.8B20.5B
30.0B
13.9B
5%
15B
25B
35B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
17B
13B12B
8.3% 8.0%7.3%
6.6%
5.1%
1.7%
-11%
9%
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 118
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 119 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 120
SECTION F.II
STATE PROFILES:
10 NE/HIMALAYAN
STATES Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 121
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Arunachal Pradesh’s fiscal position in 2023–24 reflects a development-oriented
approach with strong emphasis
on capital creation and social
welfare. The State’s total
developmental expenditure
nearly doubled since 2019–20,
with capital outlay accounting
for about 29% of total spending,
one of the highest among North-
Eastern states. This underscores
the State’s focus on asset
creation through investments in
agriculture, energy, and
connectivity. Initiatives such as
the Chief Minister’s Comprehensive State Rural Road Development Programme and
enhanced support to handloom, handicraft, and youth development under new
policy frameworks illustrate this orientation. Meanwhile, revenue receipts remain
predominantly driven by central transfers, though own-tax revenue has improved,
led by stronger GST performance. A decline in committed expenditure has created
fiscal space for developmental priorities, while the State continues to maintain a
revenue surplus and a manageable debt profile despite liabilities rising to about 51%
of GSDP.
Quality of Expenditure
• The state’s Total Developmental Expenditure on Revenue and Capital account
increased from ₹11,436 crore in 2019-20 to ₹21,455 crore in 2023-24.
• Capital Outlay accounted for nearly 29% of total expenditure indicating greater
emphasis on asset creation.
• Within sectors, allocation of TE to Agriculture (7.3%) and Energy (8.4%)
dominated development spending, while Education (10.9%) and Health (5.4%)
remained below the average of all other states, (14.7%) and (6.2%) respectively.
• Committed expenditure decreased from about 39% of revenue receipts in 2022-
23 to 28% in 2023-24.
Revenue Mobilisation
• The State’s total revenue receipts for 2023-24 stood at `27,441 crore. Of this,
`3,698 crore (13%) was raised by the state through its own resources, and `23,742
crore (87%) come from the centre.
28%
38%37%
33%
7%
7%11%
14%
26%
19%
26%
20%
33%
33%
25%
21%
7%
3%1%
13%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization Fiscal Prudence
Debt IndexDebt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 122
• Own-Tax Revenue grew at 14% led by higher contributions in State GST. State
GST is estimated to be the largest source of own tax revenue with a share of 75%.
• Central transfers remain the anchor of fiscal stability; Share in Central Taxes has
been on a rising trend since 2019-20, increasing from ₹8,988 crore to ₹19,845
crore in 2023-24, more than doubled over the same period.
Fiscal Prudence
• The State recorded a Revenue Surplus of ₹6,877 crore in 2023-24, highest in five
years compared with ₹2,670 crore in 2019-20
• Fiscal deficit of the State has consistently remained between 3.5%–4% of GSDP
since 2019-20, persistently breaching the FRBM limit of 3%.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Outstanding liabilities increased from ₹12,131 crore (40.4% of GSDP) in 2019-20 to
about ₹19,610 crore (51%) in 2023-24, a growth of roughly 61%. The outstanding
liabilities is showing a rising trend since 2021-22.
• The ratio of Interest Payments to Total Revenue Receipts of the State was 3% for
2023-24, lower than 4.13% in 2019-20. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 120

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 10 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
8.3% 14.2%
19.8%
22.7%
6.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Arunachal Pradesh
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
4.2%
6.3%
2.4%
2.9%
4.8%
1.5%
10.6%
13.2% 13.5%
24.9%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Non Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHS)
-2.9%
7.8%
4.9%
11.0%14.9%
17.8%
3.8%
-2.9%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDPRD/GSDP
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
34.1%33.9%
43.8%
3.2%
3.5%
37.3%
7.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP Average* IP/RR Average*
7%
9%8%
12.5%
6.8%
7.3%
5.5%6.2%
-3.7%-4.5%
2.5%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap** 123
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 124
ASSAM
Assam’s
15
fiscal profile in 2023–24 highlights continued developmental focus
supported by steady revenue
growth and partial fiscal
consolidation. Developmental
expenditure rose by nearly 39%
between 2020–21 and 2023–24,
reflecting sustained investment
in growth and welfare schemes.
However, the predominance of
revenue spending and a high
share of committed expenditure,
over 62% of revenue receipts,
have constrained flexibility for
fresh initiatives. Own revenue
collections have improved markedly, driven by GST buoyancy and better tax
compliance, while non-tax revenues have nearly doubled, indicating gradual
diversification. Despite a temporary revenue deficit surge in 2022–23, fiscal
indicators improved in 2023–24 with lower deficits and stable expenditure control,
suggesting a return to a more balanced fiscal stance.
Quality of Expenditure
• The state’s developmental expenditure rose from ₹53,219 crore in 2020–21 to
₹74,166 crore in 2023–24, reflecting a 39.3% increase over four years.
• The composition of developmental expenditure has remained broadly stable
since 2020–21, with about 75–78% directed toward revenue spending and the rest
allocated to capital outlays. However, the revenue component fluctuated sharply
peaking in 2022–23 and then declined on 2023-24. Committed expenditure
continued to account for over 62% of revenue receipts during this period.
• Developmental spending accounted for nearly 64% of total expenditure in 2023–
24, though down from over 69% in 2020–21.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Assam’s state own revenue increased from ₹20,033 crore in 2020–21 to
₹34,081 crore in 2023–24, reflecting a compound annual growth rate (CAGR)
of roughly 14%. While this indicates improving revenue Mobilisation, the state
continues to rely heavily on central transfers which account for 38.4% of revenue
receipts in 2023–24.
15 https://finance.assam.gov.in/sites/default/files/swf_utility_folder/departments/agriculture_com_oid_2/menu/document/mtfp_2024-
25.pdf
11%
16%
24%
16%
27%
30%
26%
30%
12%
7%4%
8%
45%
45% 44%
36%
5%
1%2%
10%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 125
• Non-tax revenue nearly doubled from ₹2,900 crore in 2020–21 to ₹5,903 crore
in 2023–24, showing some diversification, but it still represents only ~17% of
total own revenue, limiting the state’s flexibility. The actual estimates for non-tax
revenue have also fallen short of the budget estimates by ₹1108 crore.
Fiscal Prudence
• Revenue deficit surged sharply in 2022–23 to ₹12,072 crore before falling
to ₹2,628 crore in 2023–24. The state had experienced a surplus of ₹382 crore
in 2020-21. Gross fiscal deficit also peaked in 2022-23 and declined in the
current year.
• Assam’s Gross Fiscal Deficit (GFD) as a share of GSDP rose sharply to 5.9% in
2022–23 from 3.6% in 2020–21 with a partial decline to 3.7% in 2023–24 indicating
partial fiscal consolidation.
• Revenue Deficit (RD) relative to GSDP remained low overall, peaking at 2.5% in
2022–23 but falling to 0.5% in 2023–24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Assam’s outstanding liabilities and interest payments grew by 67% and
57% respectively between 2020–21 and 2023–24, indicating sustained
borrowing which has increased the state’s debt servicing obligations and
constrained fiscal flexibility.
• Interest payments have continued to rise, with the ratio of interest payments to
revenue receipts, which had declined from 8% in 2020–21 to 7.7% in 2022–23,
surging back to around 8–9% in 2023–24. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 12P=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the=difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
5.1%
5.1%
2.7%
1.2%
4.8%
1.5%
33.4B 30.9B
37.2B
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B
35.0B
40.0B0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
2.3%
2.8%
4.9%
3.4%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Assam
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
2.8%
1.5%
5.9%
J0.5%
J2.1%
2.5%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
18.1B
19.2B
25.8B
6.1%7.7%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
20.9B
17.4B12.5B
7.4%
7.8%
6.5%
6.2%
J9.2%
10.9B
-15%
5%
25B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 126
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 127
HIMACHAL PRADESH
Himachal Pradesh’s fiscal health reflects a mix of structural strengths and emerging
pressures. While the State has
historically maintained revenue
surpluses, recent years have seen
a shift towards revenue deficits,
indicating that borrowings are
increasingly being used to meet
recurring obligations rather than
development-oriented investments.
A substantial portion of
expenditure is dominated by
committed liabilities, including
pension obligations and interest
payments, which constrains fiscal
flexibility and limits discretionary spending for priority sectors. The composition of
expenditure has shifted, with a rising share in general and social services and a relative
decline in economic services, pointing to reduced allocation towards growth-promoting
investments. On the revenue side, own-tax collections have shown moderate growth,
supported by certain buoyant segments, but non-tax revenues have grown slowly, and
declining grants-in-aid from the Centre have added pressure to the State’s finances.
Debt levels have risen steadily, and interest obligations are gradually absorbing a larger
share of revenue receipts, further limiting room for capital formation.
Quality of Expenditure
• Various components of expenditure in total expenditure fluctuated during
the period 2019-24. The share of General Services and Social Services in total
expenditure increased from 34.48% and 36.59% in 2019-20 to 38.64% and 37.78%
respectively in 2023-24, while that of Economic Services decreased from 27.64%
to 23.36% during the same period.
• Revenue expenditure increased by 45.56% during 2019-24 and by 0.69% during
2023-24 over the previous year.
• Revenue expenditure rose mainly due to higher pension liabilities under the
Old Pension Scheme, increased interest payments on market loans, and greater
spending on disaster relief works.
• During the period 2019-24, committed expenditure constituted a dominant share
ranging between 64 and 70% of Revenue expenditure.
16% 16%
23%
12%
47% 46%
47%
59%
8% 12%
8%3%
22%
22% 14% 23%
7%5%8%
3%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 128
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts increased by 27.42% during 2019-20 to 2023-24. During the
period of the last five years 2019-24, it increased at an annual average growth
rate of 4.92%.
• Own Tax revenue and Non-Tax revenue increased by 11.70% and 5.03% respectively
in 2023-24 as compared to 2022-23. The average growth rate of Own Tax revenue
in last five years is 9.53%, while the average growth rate of Non-Tax revenue is
only 2.08%.
• On the other hand, the Grants-in-aid is showing a decreasing trend in the last
three years. It consistently decreased by 4.23% in 2021-22, 5.10% in 2022-23 and
10.71% in 2023-24 over the previous year.
• Revenue buoyancy with reference to GSDP remained below one, from 2021-22
to 2023-24. The own Tax revenue buoyancy remained above one in two years
(i.e. 2021-22 and 2023-24) out of four years.
Fiscal Prudence
• After generating consistent Revenue Surplus since 2015-16, the State recorded a
negative Revenue balance (Revenue Deficit) in 2020-21 and continued to have a
Revenue Deficit of around 3% of its GSDP during 2022-2024, which shows that
borrowings were largely used to finance the State’s recurring expenditure and
not for development-oriented spending.
• In the last two years the Revenue Deficit remained high at 3.30% (2022-23) and
2.68% (2023-24) of GSDP, while the Fiscal Deficit was 6.46% and 5.43% during
the same period.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The total Outstanding Debt GSDP ratio of the Government has increased from
39.09% in 2019-20 to 43.98% in 2023-24.
• Interest payments as a percentage of Revenue receipts showing decreasing trend
during 2019-22, whereas it showing an increasing trend over the last two years i.e.
2022-23 and Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 12S=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
2.8%
3.1%
3.8%
3.2%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Himachal Pradesh
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
5.1%
5.5%
1.9%
1.5%
4.8%
1.5%
33.3B 30.7B
37.9B
24.9B
0%
5%
10B
15B
20B
25B
30B
35B
40B
45B
50B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
4.0%
2.4%
6.4%
J1.9%
J1.0%
3.3%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
36.8B 36.6B
45.1B
13.0B12.7B
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
12.2B
10.5B12.5B
8.3% 7.9%
6.5%
6.2%
1.8%
J11.7B
4.0%
-20%
-10%
0%
10B
20B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 129
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 130
MANIPUR
The state’s fiscal position reflects an increased focus on capital investment and
developmental spending, though
overall prioritisation of
development relative to total
expenditure has slightly declined.
High committed expenditure
limits flexibility for discretionary
and growth-oriented spending.
Revenue mobilisation has
weakened, increasing reliance on
central transfers, while fiscal and
revenue deficits, along with rising
debt and interest obligations,
constrain the state’s fiscal space.
Quality of Expenditure
• Total developmental expenditure as a share of total expenditure declined slightly
from 56% to 53% between 2019-20 to 2023-24, indicating a modest reduction
in the prioritisation of developmental spending relative to overall expenditure.
• During the same period, total capital outlay relative to nominal GSDP increased
from 4% to 6%, reflecting a rise in the state’s capital investment intensity,
supported by a near doubling of capital developmental expenditure in absolute
terms (₹1,109 crore to ₹2,607 crore).
• Committed expenditure as a proportion of total expenditure remained high at 55%
for 2023-24, implying rising obligations which constrain flexibility in state finances.
Revenue Mobilisation
• State own revenue as a share of nominal GSDP declined from 4% to 3%, reflecting
a decline in the state’s capacity to mobilise resources internally between
2019-20 to 2023-24.
• Devolution and grants as a share of revenue receipts stood at 90% for
2023-24, highlighting the state’s increased reliance on fiscal transfers to support
expenditure needs.
Fiscal Prudence
• Gross fiscal deficit as a share of nominal GSDP rose from 2% in 2019–20 to
4% in 2023–24 whereas revenue deficit shifted from a small deficit (1%) in 2019–
20 to 2% in 2023–24.
26%
16%
32%
14%
0%
2%
5%
0%
22%
26%
18%
22%
38% 45%
39%
35%
13% 11%
6%
29%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 131
• Despite the small improvement in revenue balance, persistent dependence on
central transfers and high committed expenditure limits room for additional
discretionary spending.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Outstanding liabilities as a share of nominal GSDP increased from 38% in
2019–20 to 43% in 2023–24 experiencing a CAGR of 13.4% during the five-year
period.
• Interest payments as a share of revenue receipts rose from 6% to 7%, reflecting
a rise in the debt servicing burden on the state’s finances. Interest payments
continue to grow at a CAGR of 8% since 2019-20. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 12V=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
7.3%
5.5%
9.3%
9.0%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Manipur
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.8%
4.8%
0.6%
1.2%
4.8%
1.5%
8.2%
11.1B
9.7%
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.3%
3.4%
4.6%
4.0%
J3.0%
J4.5%
3.8%
J2.9%
-10%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
40.6B
38.2B
44.5B
5.5%5.5%
37.3B
7.8%0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
17.6B
12.7B12.5B
7.0%6.0%
5.7%
6.2%
0.7%
J7.4%
7.0%
-15%
-5B
5%
15B
25B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 132
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 133
MEGHALAYA
Meghalaya’s shows a positive increase in capital expenditure, indicating a strong
focus on infrastructure and
developmental projects, while
revenue expenditure remains
dominated by committed costs
such as salaries, pensions, and
interest payments. The state’s
own tax revenue as a share of
GSDP improved slightly,
supported mainly by SGST, sales
taxes, and excise, though non-
tax revenues contributed a
smaller and slightly declining
share. Despite maintaining a
revenue surplus, fiscal prudence is constrained, as the fiscal deficit and debt-to-
GSDP ratio significantly exceed MFRBM targets. Interest payments, however, have
declined as a proportion of revenue receipts, providing some relief.
Quality of Expenditure
• The Capital Expenditure in 2023-24 was higher by 64.60% over the
previous year. However, as percentage of GSDP, capital outlay was 8.54%.
Similarly, capital outlay of ₹4,529.54 crore exceeded budget estimates by 18.83%
during the year.
• Under the revenue expenditure, the quantum of committed expenditure
constitutes the largest share. Committed expenditure on interest payments,
salaries and pensions constituted 44-56% of revenue expenditure during 2019-
20 (56%) and 2023-24 (44%). The Committed expenditure increased at a
compound annual average rate of 7.86% from 2019-20 to 2023-24.
• Notable increase in Capital Expenditure indicates higher investment in
infrastructure or other developmental projects. However, revenue expenditure
remained significant, emphasising operational costs.
Revenue Mobilisation
• The share of state’s own tax revenue as percentage of GSDP increased to
6.06% in 2023-24 from 5.69% in 2022-23. During the five-year period from 2019-
20 to 2023-24, the share hovered around 6%. The major contributors were SGST
Taxes on Sales, Trades, etc. and State Excise. During 2023-24, the State’s Own
Tax Revenue comprised 17.89% of total Revenue Receipts.
31%
26%
39%
32%
18%26%
22%
18%
9%
8%
2%
6%
39%40%32%
28%
2%0%
5%
15%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 134
• During the year 2023-24, the Non-Tax Revenue contributed 2.91% to the Revenue
Receipts. Under the Non-Tax Revenue, royalty and fees collected under Mining
concessions was the highest contributor at 61.70% followed by receipts under
Forestry and Wildlife at 20.81% Non-Tax Revenue decreased by 1.29% during
2019-20 and 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• As regards to fiscal parameters in 2023-24, the State maintained revenue surplus
as mandated by the MFRBM Act. The Fiscal Deficit as a percentage of GSDP
reached 5.94%, and the outstanding-GSDP ratio was 40.56%, missing the targets
under MFRBM Act at 3.50% and 28.00% respectively. Over the past five years,
the State failed to meet the targets for revenue balance in three years and fiscal
balance in four years.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The total Outstanding Debt GSDP ratio of the government has increased from
33.17% in 2019-20 to 40.56% in 2023-24.
• Interest payments as a percentage of revenue receipts showing decreasing trend
during 2019-24, falling from 8.06% in 2019 to 6.33% in 2024. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 13O=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
5.0%
3.4%
7.0%
5.9%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Meghalay~
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
5.6%
5.7%
1.3%
1.0%
4.8%
1.5%
20.9B
24.3B
20.8B
24.9B
0%
5%
10B
15B
20B
25B
30B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
4.2%
6.3%
6.0%
0.8%1.7%
0.1%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
29.1B
33.0B
39.9B
6.8%
6.9%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
19.1B
13.6B
12.5B
6.9%
6.9%
6.1%
6.2%
J10.3B
7.6%
-15%
-5B
5%
15B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average* 13R=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the=difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
6.9%
10.3B
3.8%
4.4%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
12B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Mizoram
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.3%
3.7%
2.1% 3.4%
4.8%
1.5%
10.9B
15.6B
20.0B
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B
0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
7.7%
1.6%
3.7%
J1.0%
J7.0%
J0.6%
3.8%
J2.9%
-10%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
48.5B
33.4B
36.4B
4.1%4.8%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
20B
40B
60B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
11.6B
13.1B
10.2B12.5B
5.6%
5.1%
5.3%
6.2%
J8.9%
4.9%
-9B
-4B
1%
6%
11B
16B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 135
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 136
MIZORAM
Mizoram’s fiscal stance has improved on certain indicators, with a contained fiscal
deficit and a widening revenue
surplus in 2023-24. However, the
expenditure profile remains
stringent with committed and
inflexible spending together
absorb about 70% of revenue
expenditure, and subsidies are
rising sharply from a low base.
Capital outlay forms just a tenth
of total spending, and a sizeable
share of borrowings continues to
service consumption rather than
investment. On the revenue side,
overall collections have risen, but own tax mobilisation remains structurally weak,
among the lowest in the Northeast and public sector returns are negligible. While
the outstanding debt-GSDP ratio has eased marginally, pressure is emerging through
higher interest burdens over time.
Quality of Expenditure
• Committed expenditure (salaries, pensions, interest) constituted 65.77% of
revenue expenditure in 2023-24, up from 62.59% in 2019-20, showing limited
fiscal room.
• Inflexible expenditure declined from 9.18% to 4.22% of revenue expenditure over
the same period, though it rose sharply by 47.5% in absolute terms in 2023-24.
• Taken together, committed and inflexible expenditure accounted for 69.98%
of revenue expenditure in 2023-24, leaving little space for discretionary and
developmental priorities.
• Subsidies, though modest, increased steeply to ₹142.61 crore (1.32% of revenue
expenditure) in 2023-24, with a CAGR of 22.3% since 2019-20.
• Capital outlay was ₹1,253.78 crore (10.35% of total expenditure; 3.52% of GSDP),
with only 64% of borrowings channelled to capital formation, the rest meeting
consumption and repayments.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts increased by 11.01% over 2022-23 to ₹11,414.05 crore; CAGR
was 3.40% over 2019-24 but declined as a ratio of GSDP from 33.50% in 2022-23
to 32.08% in 2023-24.
28% 30%26%
17%
4%
5%15%
23%
24%16%
11%
18%
28%37%
48%
42%
15%12%
0%0%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 137
• Own tax revenue increased by 8.51% to ₹1,195.59 crore, but Mizoram remained
among the weakest in the NE region, with OTR forming only 17.5% of total tax
revenue in 2023-24 versus the regional average of 42.7%.
• Buoyancy of revenue receipts with respect to GSDP was 0.69, while own revenue
receipts showed weak responsiveness at 0.44 for 2023-24.
• Public sector returns remain negligible; misclassification of expenditures and
off-budget practices (e.g., guarantees invoked) distort true fiscal reporting.
Fiscal Prudence
• Revenue surplus widened to ₹577.09 crore (1.62% of GSDP), up from ₹189.89
crore in 2022-23 and fiscal deficit reduced sharply to ₹677.70 crore (1.90% of
GSDP), within FRBM limit of 3.5%.
• Over the period 2019-20 to 2023-24, the fiscal deficit almost halved in both
absolute and relative terms, falling from ₹1,224.29 crore (4.90% of GSDP) to
₹677.71 crore (1.90% of GSDP).
• In the past five years, the state government has met the state FRBM targets for
fiscal and revenue deficit in four years whereas the outstanding liability target
was first met only in this year which was capped at 37.84%
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Outstanding liability as a proportion of GSDP moderately declined from 34.73%
in 2019-20 to 33.96% in 2023-24. However, interest payments as a percentage of
revenue receipts have risen from 3.55% in 2019-20 to 5.10% in 2023-24.
• Debt sustainability is currently supported by strong nominal GSDP growth
(15.93% in 2023-24), though primary deficit persists.
• Most borrowings continue to be diverted to consumption/repayments instead of
asset creation, limiting long-term growth impact. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 13R=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of NM=major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the=difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government.=
6.9%
10.3B
3.8%
4.4%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
12B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Mizoram
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.3%
3.7%
2.1% 3.4%
4.8%
1.5%
10.9B
15.6B
20.0B
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
7.7%
1.6%
3.7%
J1.0%
J7.0%
J0.6%
3.8%
J2.9%
-10%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
48.5B
33.4B
36.4B
4.1%4.8%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
20B
40B
60B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
11.6B
13.1B
10.2B12.5B
5.6%
5.1%
5.3%
6.2%
J8.9%
4.9%
-9B
-4B
1%
6%
11B
16B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 138
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 139
NAGALAND
Nagaland’s fiscal profile in 2023–24 reflects high overall expenditure, with capital
spending on a rise, though
allocations to health and
education remain below regional
averages. Committed and
inflexible expenditures absorb
over two-thirds of revenue,
limiting fiscal space for
discretionary and developmental
priorities. Revenue mobilisation
has grown steadily, driven by tax
revenue and own resources, but
dependence on Union transfers
remains significant. The state
maintained a revenue surplus though the fiscal deficit breached the FRBM cap in
2023-24. Debt-to-GSDP ratio exceeds FRBM projections, while interest payments
have slightly declined as a share of revenue receipts. Overall, the state demonstrates
controlled revenue performance and improving capital focus, but faces constraints
from high committed expenditure, rising debt, and reliance on central transfers.
Quality of Expenditure
• Since 2019–20, Nagaland’s expenditure has stayed high at about 43% of GSDP
against the NE&H average of about 25%, its capital expenditure rose from 9.46%
to 17.40% of total expenditure, while the shares of education (12.19% in 2019–20
and 12.52% in 2023–24) and health (5.20% in 2019–20 and 4.89% in 2023–24)
remained below the regional average in both years.
• Committed expenditure (salaries, pensions, interest) plus inflexible spending
stood at 67.3% of revenue receipts in 2023-24, leaving little room for discretionary
development. Salaries and wages alone absorbed 41.5% of receipts.
• Developmental expenditure to GSDP for the state has moderately declined from
24.42% in 2019-20 to 24.34% in 2023-24.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Total revenue receipts rising from ₹11,423 crore to ₹16,155 crore (growth of
14.6% in 2023-24), driven by an increase in tax revenue from ₹4,225 crore to
₹8,025 crore and own tax revenue from ₹958 crore to ₹1,598 crore, while grants
from GoI grew moderately to ₹7,452 crore; RR as a share of GSDP remained
broadly stable around 38–42% over the period.
9%
16%
11% 12%
1%
0%
2%
15%
35% 24%
43% 16%
37% 43%
34%
31%
18% 16%
10%
26%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 140
• Own resource mobilisation improved, with own tax and non-tax revenue rising
from ₹1,298 crore in 2019-20 to ₹2,276 crore in 2023-24, growing at 17.3% in
2023-24, while dependence on grants from GoI persisted at roughly 46% of total
revenue receipts.
• Despite growth in collections, revenue mobilisation faces challenges as own tax
and non- tax revenues forms around ~14% of RR in 2023-24 indicating reliance
on transfers from the Union.
Fiscal Prudence
• Nagaland recorded a revenue surplus of ₹1,335 crore (3.2% of GSDP) in 2023-24,
maintaining its surplus status and well within the stipulated targets.
• The revenue balance as a share of GSDP fluctuated between -0.72% and 3.19%
from 2019-20 to 2023-24, indicating periods of both surplus and deficit over the
five-year span.
• The fiscal deficit remained within the prescribed share of GSDP in three of the
five years between 2019-20 and 2023-24. Fiscal deficit widened to ₹1,784 crore
breaching the FRBM cap of 3% in the current year.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The debt-to-GSDP ratio increased from 40.99% in 2019-20 to 43.42% in
2023-24, reflecting a rising debt burden relative to the state’s economy.
• Outstanding liabilities has not remained within the projections of FRBM/MTFP
targets of the state. The target for the current year was set at 40.60% and the
state recorded the same at 43.42%. Since 2019-20, the state has only been able
to achieve its target for 2022-23.
• Interest payments absorbed 6.6% of revenue receipts (₹1,068 crore). It has been
on a declining trend since 2019-20 which stood at 7.12%. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 13U=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 10 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of=GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
5.6%
5.2%
5.9%
7.6%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Nagaland
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.2%
4.1%
1.0%
1.3%
4.8%
1.5%
9.1%
11.1B
14.1B
24.9B
0.0%
5.0%
10.0B
15.0B
20.0B
25.0B
30.0B0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
0.7%
4.1%
4.4%
4.5%
4.8%
J2.0%
J1.9%
3.8%
J2.9%
-10%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average* RD/GSDP Average*
43.2B
43.9B43.7B
6.7%
7.0%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
8.2%
11.7B12.5B
7.4% 7.4% 6.9%
6.2%
J1.3%
J6.6%
4.9%
-10%
0%
10B
20B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 141
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 142
SIKKIM
Sikkim’s fiscal position in 2023–24 reflects overall stability anchored in prudent
expenditure management and
consistent central support. The
State continues to maintain a
revenue surplus and a
manageable debt profile, though
fiscal consolidation has
moderated with a widening fiscal
deficit. Dependence on central
transfers continues, while limited
own-tax capacity constrains
fiscal autonomy. Rising
committed expenditure
particularly on salaries, pensions,
and interest continues to limit allocative flexibility despite efforts to prioritise capital
and social sector outlays. While debt and liability indicators remain within
manageable thresholds, growing guarantees to PSUs and higher borrowing for
routine expenditure signal emerging pressures on fiscal sustainability. Overall,
Sikkim demonstrates a fiscally disciplined yet structurally dependent profile,
balancing stability with constrained flexibility for future developmental spending.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2023-24, the State’s Revenue Expenditure increased by 7.7% over the previous
year, with Social Services accounting for about 35% and Economic Services for
around 24% of total revenue spending.
• Nearly 70% of Revenue Expenditure was devoted to committed obligations such
as salaries, pensions, and interest payments.
• The growth in capital expenditure has not kept pace with the steady growth of
GSDP since 2019-20 onwards.
• Capital Expenditure amounted recorded a 12% annual growth with Social Services
accounting for 46% and Economic Services for 27% within capital spending.
Revenue Mobilisation
• Revenue receipts grew modestly by 3% (over the previous year) in FY 2023-24 to
₹8,351 crore, following much stronger gains of 14.5% and 26.3% in the preceding
two years. Over the five-year period (2019-20 to 2023-24), the CAGR stands
at roughly 14.4%, but the ratio to GSDP declined from 19.0% to 17.1%, indicating
that while nominal collections rose, elasticity with respect to state income has
moderated due to contraction in grants-in-aid and non-tax receipts in 2023-24.
18% 19% 21%
17%
23% 25%
25%
28%
12% 7%
9%
7%
42% 47% 41%
35%
5%2%4%
14%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 143
• Of the total revenue receipts, tax revenue accounted for about 72%, non-tax
revenue 10%, and grants-in-aid 17%.
• Tax Revenue increased by 13% in 2023-24, driven by Taxes on Income and
Expenditure, that contributed around 46% of total tax receipts, followed by
GST at 38% and Taxes on Commodities and Services at 15%. Non-Tax Revenue
declined by 10% compared to the previous year.
• The proportion of State’s own tax collection in overall tax revenue has shown
an increasing trend since 2019-20. The share of tax revenue increased to 54% as
compared to 2019-20.
Fiscal Prudence
• The State continued to record a Revenue Surplus for a third consecutive year,
though it declined from around 1.1% of GSDP in 2022-23 to 0.3% in 2023-24.
• The Fiscal Deficit increased from around 4.5% of GSDP in 2022-23 to 5.2% in
2023-24, marginally exceeding the 3% limit prescribed under the FRBM Act. The
fiscal deficit constituted 23% of total expenditure.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt liabilities rose from 24% in 2019-20 to over 31% of GSDP in 2023-24
(₹ 15,168 crore), exceeding the 28% ceiling prescribed under the FRBM framework,
indicating growing dependence on debt financing and limited headroom for
additional borrowing.
• Outstanding guarantees, at ₹4,786 crore, exceeded the prescribed limit by about
65%, signalling elevated contingent liabilities and potential fiscal risks.
• In 2023–24, interest payments were ₹824 crore, about 1.68% of GSDP and ~10.0%
of revenue expenditure. Interest payments remained stable, fluctuating around
9% to 11% of revenue receipts during 2019-20 to 2023-24. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 14N=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023J24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
=
=
6.5%
5.9%
3.5%
5.6%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Sikkim
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.1%
3.5%
2.3% 2.3%
4.8%
1.5%
24.0B
29.0B 31.4B
24.9B
0%
5%
10B
15B
20B
25B
30B
35B
40B
0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
1.8%
2.3%4.5%
4.7%
J2.4%J1.1%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
22.6B 22.3B
29.8B
7.3%8.9%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
14.0B
14.7B
12.5B
7.5%
7.9%
6.5%
6.2%
J2.4%
8.2%
-5B
15B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 144
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 145
TRIPURA
Tripura’s fiscal stance is broadly stable and consolidated, but structurally constrained
by a narrow own-revenue base
and reliance on central transfers.
The State delivered a revenue
surplus and kept fiscal deficit
well within FRBM limits in 2023–
24, while capital outlays
expanded largely for social and
economic services supporting
development priorities. Yet
receipts remain concentrated:
grants-in-aid and the State’s
share of Union taxes together
form a large chunk of total
receipts, while non-tax revenue is very limited. Committed payments (salaries,
pensions, interest) still absorb a sizeable portion of revenue expenditure even as
their share has moderated, which restricts discretionary spending. Fiscal indicators
such as declining debt-to-GSDP and lower interest burden are positive, but liquidity
and transparency issues such as large unspent sums parked in DDO bank accounts
and thousands of pending utilisation certificates weaken expenditure credibility
and could undermine the effectiveness of increased capital spending.
Quality of Expenditure
• Revenue expenditure registered the growth of 37% during 2019-20 to 2023-24,
induced the Government with higher flexibility in development.
• Under Revenue Expenditure, General Services registered a growth of 8.0%,
Economic Services of 1.6%, while Social Services registered a marginal decline of
1.5% over the previous year.
• Capital Expenditure grew by 35% in 2023-24 compared to previous year, driven
by higher outlays on Social Services and Economic Services, which together
accounted for nearly 90% of total capital expenditure.
• Committed Expenditure increased by 19% from 2019-20 to 2023-24,
however, its share in Revenue Expenditure declined from 68% to 59% during the
same period.
• Unspent funds (₹550.14 crore remained parked in DDO bank accounts (as of 31-
Mar-2024)) and pending Utilization Certificates (2,867 UCs amounting to ₹960.87
crore), weaken expenditure credibility and timeliness of financial reporting.
34%
5%
16%
11%
12%
23%
11%
11%
2%
0%
26%
18%
40%
65%
37%
30%
12%
6%10%
31%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of ExpenditureRevenue Mobilization
Fiscal PrudenceDebt Index
Debt Sustainability FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 146
Revenue Mobilisation
• In 2023-24, the State’s Revenue Receipts stood at ₹20,538 crore, registering a
growth of 12% over 2022-23. Of the total revenue receipts, tax revenue accounted
for about 55%, non-tax revenue 2%, and grants-in-aid 43%.
• The total tax revenue (including share of Union Taxes) increased by 9.57%, the
non-tax revenue increased by 4.73% and the grants-in-aid increased by 7.94% as
compared to previous year.
• Within tax revenues, Taxes on Income and Expenditure (46%) contributed the
largest share, followed by Goods and Services Tax (GST) at 36%.
• The proportion of State’s own tax collection in overall tax revenue was 29% and
share of Union taxes was 71% during the year 2023-24.
Fiscal Prudence
• The Fiscal Deficit narrowed to ₹638 crore in 2023–24 (0.8% of GSDP) from ₹1,513
crore in 2022–23 (2.14% of GSDP), remaining well within the FRBM limit of 3%.
• The Revenue Account has remained in surplus over the past three years, reflecting
with surplus increasing from ₹570 crore in 2022-23 to ₹2,196 crore in 2023-24.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Total liabilities increased from ₹17,846 crore in 2019-20 to ₹22,507 crore in
2023-24. However, as a percentage of GSDP, they decreased steadily from 32%
in 2019-20 to 27% in 2023-24.
• Interest payments constituted 6% of revenue receipts in 2023-24, reflecting
an improvement compared to the 8–10% range observed between 2019-20
and 2022-23. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 14Q=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 10 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
9.6%
4.1%
2.3%
3.0%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10B
12B
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Tripur~
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
3.5%
4.2%
0.7%
0.6%
4.8%
1.5%
17.0B
19.7B
18.1B
24.9B
0%
5%
10B
15B
20B
25B
30B0%
2%
4%
6%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.6%
2.7%
2.1%
6.1%
J0.3%
J0.8%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
0%
5%
10B
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
31.6B 29.7B30.7B
8.5%
7.5%
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG
IP/RR Average*
16.4B
12.5B12.5B
7.8%
7.9%
6.1%
6.2%
J8.4%
6.3%
-10%
10B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 147
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 148
UTTARAKHAND
Uttarakhand’s fiscal position remains broadly stable, though signs of emerging
strain are visible. Revenue
receipts have grown more slowly
than expenditure, leading to a
narrowing revenue surplus. The
State continues to rely on central
transfers, as its own non-tax
revenue base remains relatively
limited. Rising committed
expenditure on salaries, pensions,
and interest payments continues
to constrain fiscal flexibility,
leaving less room for
developmental spending. While
capital expenditure rose sharply in 2023–24, its impact has been moderated by
delays in project execution and underutilisation of funds. Revenue mobilisation
remains concentrated in GST and taxes on income, with modest growth in non-tax
revenue. The State’s debt burden, though moderate compared to peers, has
increased in absolute terms, and the widening fiscal deficit in 2023–24 marks a
reversal after earlier consolidation. Overall, Uttarakhand’s fiscal outlook underscores
the need to strengthen revenue diversification and expenditure efficiency to
preserve its record of fiscal discipline.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2023-24, the State’s Revenue Expenditure increased by 8% in 2023-24 as
compared to previous year, with Social Services rising by 8.2% and Economic
Services by 11.9%. Education and Health accounted for over 28% of total Revenue
Expenditure.
• Between 2019-20 and 2023-24, Committed Expenditure increased from ₹21,760
crore to ₹27,558 crore (an increase of 26.65%), though its share in Revenue
Expenditure declined from 66% to 58% during the same period.
• Capital Expenditure grew sharply by 34% during the year compared to 2022-
23, driven by higher outlays on Social Services and Economic Services, which
together accounted for nearly 78% of total capital expenditure.
Revenue Mobilisation
• In 2023-24, the State’s Revenue Receipts increased by 3.1% in 2023-24
over the previous year, led by strong tax performance. Own Tax Revenue grew
by 12.5%, while Non-Tax Revenue rose marginally by 1.2% and Grants-in-Aid
declined by 15.7%.
17%
6%
12%11%
45%
51%40%
32%
6%
6%16%
10%
33%
32%27%
25%
0%
4%6%
22%
Avg_2014-17 Avg_2017-20 Avg_2020-23 2023-24
Contribution of Indicators in FHI Score
Quality of Expenditure Revenue Mobilization Fiscal Prudence
Debt IndexDebt Sustainability Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 149
• The major contributors of Tax revenue were Goods and Services Tax contributing
38%, Taxes on Income and Expenditure (26%), and Taxes on Commodities and
Services (29%).
• Non-Tax Revenue has been on an increasing trend since 2019 due to higher
collections from General and Economic Services, with an exception in 2021-22.
Fiscal Prudence
• The State recorded a Revenue Surplus for the fourth consecutive year, at
₹3,341 crore in 2023-24 (0.97% of GSDP) against ₹5,310 crore in 2022-23.
• Fiscal Deficit widened from ₹2,949 crore (0.97% of GSDP) in 2022-23 to ₹7,749
crore (2.24% of GSDP) in 2023-24, though remaining well within the FRBM limit
of 3%. During 2019-20 to 2023-24, Fiscal Deficit declined as a share of GSDP
from 3.2% to 2.2%.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Outstanding debt increased from ₹65,982 crore in 2019-20 to ₹80,266 crore in
2023-24, though its ratio to GSDP declined from 27.6% to 23.2%.
• Interest payments increased from ₹4,504 crore in 2019-20 to ₹5,192 crore in
2023-24, while their ratio to Revenue Receipts declined from 15% to 10%,
reflecting an improved debt servicing profile.
• Borrowed funds during 2023-24 were largely directed to productive capital
creation, with Capital Outlay forming 38% of total borrowings. FISCAL HEALTH INDEu
Financial Year 2023-24 14T=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
*Average of 10 major states for FY 202PJ24=
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average interest rate or cost of borrowing of the governmentK=
3.2%
2.7%3.1%
2.8%
6.7%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Uttarakhand
Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure
Committed Expenditure/Total Expenditure average*
5.3%
5.8%
1.4% 1.5%
4.8%
1.5%
49.2B
42.2B
46.8B
24.9B
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
50B
60B0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDm
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Non Tax/GSDP AverageG
Own Revenue/Total Revenue(RHS)
Own Revenue/Total Revenue Average*(RHSF
3.6%
3.2%
1.0%
J0.6%
0.4%
J1.8%
3.8%
J2.9%
-5B
-3B
0%
3%
5%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to GSDP
FD/GSDmRD/GSDm
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
20.7B
25.2B
26.8B
14.3B
10.4B
37.3B
7.8%
0%
10B
20B
30B
40B
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDPIP/Ro
Debt Stock/ GSDP AverageG IP/RR Average*
13.0B13.8B
12.5B
8.9%8.6%6.6%
6.2%
0.9%
J12.9B
7.2%
-20%
-10%
0%
10B
20B
Debt Sustainability Ratios
GSDP Growth Rate
GSDP Growth Rate Average*
Interest Rate on Debt
Interest Rate on Debt Average*
Domar Gap*G 150
*Average of 10 major states for FY 2023-24
**The Domar gap is the difference between the nominal growth rate of GSDP (or GDP) and the average
interest rate or cost of borrowing of the government. Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 151 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 152
SECTION G
APPENDIX Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 153
Table A1. Importance of Central Transfers for NE and Himalayan States
S tates 201 4-1 52015-162016-172017-182018-19201 9-202020-212021 -222022-23Trendline
Arunachal Pradesh 90% 91 % 89% 91 % 90% 87% 87% 89% 86%
Assam69% 7 0% 67% 68% 62% 66% 69% 71 % 66%
Himachal Pradesh 55% 64% 67% 65% 66% 67% 69% 67% 65%
Manipur91 % 92% 92% 91 % 89% 87% 89% 88% 85%
Meghalaya80% 82% 79% 80% 77% 74% 76% 80% 79%
Mizoram91 % 90% 89% 89% 87% 87% 84% 84% 79%
Nagaland91 % 92% 91 % 91 % 90% 89% 89% 88% 86%
Sikkim73% 74% 76% 74% 74% 66% 71 % 73% 69%
Tripura85% 83% 83% 81 % 82% 78% 80% 84% 81 %
Uttarakhand 53% 50% 51 % 56% 50% 50% 58% 61 % 56%
The fiscal landscape of India’s North-Eastern and Himalayan states is characterised
by a strong reliance on central transfers, which remain their primary revenue source.
The composition of this support has evolved since the 14
th
Finance Commission
(2015–16), which raised the states’ share of the divisible tax pool from 32% to 42%.
While dependence on central transfers remains high, the grants-to-devolution ratio
has declined. For centrally sponsored schemes (CSS), these states traditionally
followed a 90:10 Centre–State funding pattern, reflecting their developmental
constraints; however, in recent years, some schemes have moved to a 60:40 ratio,
though most core CSS still retain the 90:10 split.
This trend is evident from the table, which shows that central transfers continue
to account for 80–90% of revenue receipts in states such as Arunachal Pradesh,
Mizoram, Manipur, and Nagaland, while relatively better-off states like Assam,
Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, and Uttarakhand show lower dependence (60–70%).
A slight decline in these shares over time reflects greater tax devolution, grant
rationalisation, and efforts toward fiscal self-reliance. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 154
Table A2. Major States: FHI Rank and Score performance from 2014-15 to 2023-24
(3-year average VS 2023-24)
Period 2023-24
2020-21 to
2022-23
2017-18 to
2019-20
2014-15 to
2016-17
States
FHI
Score
Rank FHI ScoreRank
FHI
Score
Rank
FHI
Score
Rank
Odisha 73.1 1 66.4 1 47.8 1 51.8 2
Goa 54.7 2 38.2 6 41.3 5 52.6 1
Jharkhand 50.5 3 41.6 3 37.1 9 36.8 13
Gujarat 49.9 4 39.7 5 40.4 6 46.1 6
Maharashtra 45.0 5 41.0 4 46.2 2 37.7 12
Chhattisgarh 44.3 6 44.5 2 36.5 10 49.2 4
Telangana 44.3 7 34.8 9 40.1 7 45.0 7
Uttar
Pradesh 41.9 8 36.3 7 43.2 3 40.5 8
Karnataka 41.7 9 35.5 8 42.9 4 50.7 3
Madhya
Pradesh 37.8 10 33.5 10 38.2 8 48.2 5
Haryana 34.5 11 22.6 13 28.4 13 31.9 14
Bihar 30.9 12 23.1 11 34.8 11 38.6 10
Tamil Nadu 29.8 13 23.0 12 31.5 12 40.5 9
Rajasthan 27.6 14 22.2 14 27.2 14 29.0 16
Kerala 24.8 15 17.4 16 23.0 16 30.8 15
West Bengal 23.8 16 15.5 17 22.4 17 22.0 17
Andhra
Pradesh 23.1 17 20.7 15 26.5 15 37.9 11
Punjab 12.4 18 7.8 18 14.3 18 19.9 18 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 155
Composite FHI Score Relationship with Sub Indicators for 2023-24 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 156 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 157
Table A3. FHI composite Score based Categorisation: Major States
FHI Score
StatesRankScoreCategory
Odisha173.1Achiever
Goa254.7Achiever
Jharkhand350.5Achiever
Gujarat449.9Front Runner
Maharashtra545.0Front Runner
Chhattisgarh644.3Front Runner
Telangana744.3Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh841.9Front Runner
Karnataka941.7Front Runner
Madhya Pradesh1037.8Performer
Haryana1134.5Performer
Bihar1230.9Performer
Tamil Nadu1329.8Performer
Rajasthan1427.6Performer
Kerala1524.8Aspirational
West Bengal1623.8Aspirational
Andhra Pradesh1723.1Aspirational
Punjab1812.4Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the FHI score as per below categories.
FHI scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 40 Performer
Less than equal to 25 Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 158
Table A4. Quality of Expenditure Score based Categorisation: Major States
Quality of Expenditure
StatesRankScoreCategory
Odisha171.2Achiever
Jharkhand266.3Achiever
Madhya Pradesh360.8Achiever
Chhattisgarh460.8Achiever
Bihar558.3Achiever
Telangana657.1Achiever
Uttar Pradesh750.9Achiever
Goa849.5Front Runner
Gujarat948.7Front Runner
Karnataka1046.8Front Runner
Rajasthan1143.7Front Runner
Andhra Pradesh1243.1Front Runner
West Bengal1337.4Performer
Maharashtra1436.9Performer
Haryana1535.8Performer
Tamil Nadu1630.5Performer
Punjab178.1Aspirational
Kerala184.1Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Quality of Expenditure score as per
below categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 20 & less than equal to 40 Performer
Less than equal to 20Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 159
Table A5. Revenue Mobilisation Score based Categorisation: Major States
Revenue Mobilisation
StatesRankScoreCategory
Goa180.4Achiever
Odisha280.3Achiever
Telangana360.8Achiever
Maharashtra452.7Front Runner
Chhattisgarh548.4Front Runner
Haryana648.0Front Runner
Kerala747.8Front Runner
Gujarat844.8Performer
Karnataka943.2Performer
Tamil Nadu1039.8Performer
Jharkhand1137.6Performer
Madhya Pradesh1232.0Performer
Punjab1329.8Performer
Rajasthan1429.4Performer
Uttar Pradesh1528.1Performer
Andhra Pradesh1621.7Aspirational
West Bengal1712.9Aspirational
Bihar182.9Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Revenue Mobilisation score as per
below categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 60 Achiever
Greater than 45 & less than equal to 60 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 45Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 160
Table A6. Fiscal Prudence Score based Categorisation: Major States
Fiscal Prudence
StatesRankScoreCategory
Odisha158.7Achiever
Jharkhand254.4Achiever
Gujarat351.5Achiever
Goa445.0Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh538.8Performer
Maharashtra635.2Performer
Madhya Pradesh735.1Performer
Karnataka833.1Performer
Telangana930.0Performer
Bihar1027.4Performer
Haryana1127.3Performer
Kerala1224.0Aspirational
West Bengal1322.7Aspirational
Tamil Nadu1421.5Aspirational
Rajasthan1511.3Aspirational
Andhra Pradesh169.9Aspirational
Chhattisgarh178.4Aspirational
Punjab185.9Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Fiscal Prudence score as per below
categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 40Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 161
Table A7. Debt Index Score based Categorisation: Major States
Debt Index
StatesRankScoreCategory
Odisha195.8Achiever
Maharashtra276.0Achiever
Gujarat374.2Achiever
Chhattisgarh472.5Achiever
Jharkhand567.9Achiever
Karnataka661.4Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh760.2Front Runner
Madhya Pradesh858.9Front Runner
Goa956.8Front Runner
Telangana1053.5Front Runner
Bihar1148.0Front Runner
Tamil Nadu1239.1Performer
Andhra Pradesh1336.6Performer
Haryana1432.8Performer
Rajasthan1532.1Performer
Kerala1623.3Aspirational
West Bengal1720.1Aspirational
Punjab182.1Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Debt Index score as per below
categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 65Achiever
Greater than 45 & less than equal to 65 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 45Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 162
Table A8. Major States: FHI Rank performance from 2014-15 to 2023-24
States
2023-
24
2022-
23
2021-
22
2020-
21
2019-
20
2018-
19
2017-
18
2016-
17
2015-
16
2014-
15
Avg 2014-15
to
2016-17
Avg 2017-
18 to
2019-20
Avg 2020-
21 to
2022-2023
Odisha1111222322211
Goa2397791111156
Jharkhand343995101013111393
Gujarat4556564757665
Maharashtra56433161212121224
Chhattisgarh622212372694102
Telangana78810878594779
Uttar Pradesh877511091188837
Karnataka91064443436348
Madhya
Pradesh
10910868126455810
Haryana11141215141411151415141313
Bihar121314121111591114101111
Tamil Nadu131115111012148101091212
Rajasthan14121314131613171513161414
Kerala15151716161715131616151616
West Bengal16161617171517161818171717
Andhra Pradesh171711131513161473111515
Punjab18181818181818181717181818 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 163
Table A9. NE/Himalayan States: FHI Rank and Score performance from 2014-15 to 2023-24
(3 year average VS 2023-24)
Period 2023-24 2020-21 to 2022-23
2017-18 to
2019-20
2014-15 to
2016-17
States FHI ScoreRank FHI Score RankFHI ScoreRankFHI ScoreRank
Arunachal
Pradesh
59.5 1 43.4 1 37.6 2 42.3 1
Uttarakhand 52.5 2 35.7 2 28.9 5 33.6 5
Tripura 44.1 3 20.2 8 13.4 9 26.7 8
Meghalaya 41.5 4 28.0 4 28.9 6 34.0 4
Assam 39.1 5 30.6 3 38.2 1 39.8 2
Mizoram 33.4 6 24.0 6 34.5 3 31.0 6
Sikkim 32.5 7 25.7 5 29.8 4 37.5 3
Nagaland 27.1 8 11.7 10 10.6 10 11.6 10
Himachal
Pradesh
22.0 9 21.8 7 24.6 7 29.0 7
Manipur 17.6 10 18.9 9 18.6 8 17.2 9 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 164
Composite FHI Score Relationship with Sub Indicators for 2023-24 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 165 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 166
Table A10. FHI Score based Categorisation: NE/Himalayan States
FHI Score
StatesScoreRankCategory
Arunachal Pradesh159.3Achiever
Uttarakhand252.4Achiever
Tripura343.9Performer
Meghalaya441.2Performer
Assam538.8Performer
Mizoram633.1Performer
Sikkim732.2Performer
Nagaland826.8Aspirational
Himachal Pradesh921.7Aspirational
Manipur1017.3Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the FHI score as per below categories.
FHI scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 30 & less than equal to 50 Performer
Less than equal to 30Aspirational
Table A11. Quality of Expenditure Score based Categorisation: NE/Himalayan States
Quality of Expenditure
StatesRankScoreCategory
Arunachal Pradesh197.6Achiever
Meghalaya266.6Achiever
Assam330.9Performer
Mizoram428.9Performer
Uttarakhand528.2Performer
Sikkim627.3Performer
Tripura724.6Aspirational
Nagaland815.8Aspirational
Himachal Pradesh913.2Aspirational
Manipur1011.8Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Quality of Expenditure score as per
below categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 50 Performer
Less than equal to 25 Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 167
Table A12. Revenue Mobilisation Score based Categorisation: NE/Himalayan States
Revenue Mobilisation
StatesRankScoreCategory
Uttarakhand183.3Achiever
Himachal Pradesh264.2Achiever
Assam358.3Achiever
Sikkim444.8Performer
Arunachal Pradesh540.6Performer
Meghalaya638.2Performer
Mizoram737.8Performer
Tripura823.5Aspirational
Nagaland920.8Aspirational
Manipur100.5Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Revenue Mobilisation score as per
below categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 50 Performer
Less than equal to 25 Aspirational
Table A13. Fiscal Prudence Score based Categorisation: NE/Himalayan States
Fiscal Prudence
StatesRankScoreCategory
Arunachal Pradesh159.0Achiever
Tripura238.5Performer
Mizoram329.9Performer
Uttarakhand426.6Performer
Nagaland521.7Performer
Manipur619.4Aspirational
Assam716.4Aspirational
Meghalaya812.8Aspirational
Sikkim910.8Aspirational
Himachal Pradesh103.0Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Fiscal Prudence score as per below
categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 50 Achiever
Greater than 20 & less than equal to 50 Performer
Less than equal to 20Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 168
Table A14. Debt Index Score based Categorisation: NE/Himalayan States
Debt Index
StatesRankScoreCategory
Assam169.2Achiever
Mizoram269.1Achiever
Uttarakhand366.5Achiever
Tripura466.2Achiever
Arunachal Pradesh562.0Achiever
Meghalaya657.8Performer
Sikkim756.5Performer
Nagaland841.7Performer
Manipur930.3Aspirational
Himachal Pradesh1024.9Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Fiscal Prudence score as per below
categories.
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification.
Above 60 Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 60 Performer
Less than equal to 40Aspirational Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 169
Table A16. NE/Himalayan States: Rank Performance from 2014-15 to 2023-24
States2023-242022-232021-222020-212019-202018-192017-182016-172015-162014-15
Avg
2014-15
to
2016-17
Avg
2017-18
to
2019-
20
Avg
2020-21
to
2022-
2023
Arunachal Pradesh1111314141121
Uttarakhand2232477773552
Tripura368810910837898
Meghalaya4545565468464
Assam5353223314213
Mizoram6477132285636
Sikkim7794741522345
Nagaland8101098109101010101010
Himachal Pradesh9866658656777
Manipur109210986999989 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023-24 170
References
Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management. (2025). Public financial
performance index.
CareEdge Ratings. (2023). State’s ranking 2023.
Comptroller and Auditor General of India. (n.d.). State finance dashboard. https://
cag.gov.in/en/page-sf-dashboard
Confederation of Indian Industries. (2019, May). Measuring fiscal marksmanship: Is
fiscal deficit the only measure?
Dholakia, A. (2005). Measuring fiscal performance of states: An alternative approach.
Economic and Political Weekly, 40(34), 3421–3428.
Economic Policy and Research, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE).
(2020a). State of Indian states.
Mohanty, A. R., & Mishra, B. R. (2016). Fiscal performance index of the states in India.
Prajnan, 45(3), 247–266.
Mundle, S., & Gupta, M. (2024). Fiscal performance of the central government and
the states of India (No. 24/412).
NITI Aayog. (2025). Fiscal health index 2024–25. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/
default/files/2025-01/Fiscal_Health_Index_24012025_Final.pdf
Rawat, P. S., Yadav, E. A., & Mukherjee, A. (n.d.). Fiscal performance of Himalayan
states/Union Territories.
Seth, R. (2023). Fiscal performance of Indian states. Asian Journal of Economics
and Research. https://indianjournalofeconomicsandresearch.com/index.php/aijer/
article/view/107521/75742 Financial Year 2023-24
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 171
CONTRIBUTORS
Pravakar SahooProgramme Director, NITI Aayog
Nalina Sofia TDirector, NITI Aayog
Jyotika NagvanshiDeputy Director, NITI Aayog
Mala ParasharConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Pooja TeotiaConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Apica SharmaConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Abhilasha MandaConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Salome Sara PhilipsYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Riya JindalYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Kavya RaoYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Nikita GondolayYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Kruthi RajYoung Professional, NITI Aayog NOTES NOTES