Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10035
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br /><br />The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br /><br />The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br /><br />In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br /><br />In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br /><br />It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br /><br />&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br /><br />This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br /><br />The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br /><br />The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br /><br />&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10035
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br /><br />The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br /><br />The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br /><br />In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br /><br />In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br /><br />It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br /><br />&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br /><br />This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br /><br />The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br /><br />The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br /><br />&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f81762bde54-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f81762bde54-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 10035,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 10144,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 10035
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;

The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Planning Commission&amp;rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&amp;rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&amp;rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&amp;rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&amp;rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &amp;ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&amp;rdquo;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&amp;rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&amp;rdquo; it said.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="

The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <br /><div align="justify">The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br /><br />The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br /><br />The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br /><br />In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br /><br />In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br /><br />It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br /><br />&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br /><br />This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br /><br />The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br /><br />The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br /><br />&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 10035,
		'title' => 'No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br />
<br />
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br />
<br />
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br />
<br />
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br />
<br />
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br />
<br />
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br />
<br />
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 10144,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 10035,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security',
	'metaDesc' => '

The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...',
	'disp' => '<br /><div align="justify">The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br /><br />The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br /><br />The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br /><br />In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br /><br />In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br /><br />It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br /><br />&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br /><br />This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br /><br />The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br /><br />The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br /><br />&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 10035,
	'title' => 'No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<br />
<div align="justify">
The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br />
<br />
The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br />
<br />
The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br />
<br />
In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br />
<br />
It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br />
<br />
This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br />
<br />
The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br />
<br />
The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br />
<br />
&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'Live Mint, 20 September, 2011, http://www.livemint.com/2011/09/20233825/No-revision-in-poverty-line-ca.html',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'no-revision-in-poverty-line-cap-by-plan-panel-by-nikhil-kanekal-10144',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 10144,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 10035
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal'
$metaKeywords = 'Poverty,bpl,Right to Food,Food Security'
$metaDesc = '

The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling...'
$disp = '<br /><div align="justify">The Planning Commission&rsquo;s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court&rsquo;s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation.<br /><br />The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People&rsquo;s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government&rsquo;s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government&rsquo;s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices.<br /><br />The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method.<br /><br />In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: &ldquo;We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.&rdquo;<br /><br />In Tuesday&rsquo;s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis.<br /><br />It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs.<br /><br />&ldquo;The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.&rdquo;<br /><br />This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground.<br /><br />The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer&rsquo;s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted.<br /><br />The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor.<br /><br />&ldquo;The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,&rdquo; it said.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

No revision in poverty line cap by Plan panel by Nikhil Kanekal

The Planning Commission’s latest affidavit to the Supreme Court in the right to food case reveals it has not taken the court’s advice to revise the thresholds and spending that determine the poverty line, although the commission admits to spiralling food costs and inflation. The affidavit was filed in a public interest litigation being pursued by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, which wants the government’s threshold of Rs. 12 and Rs. 17 (rural and urban daily spending, respectively) to be increased to include a greater section of the population for food subsidies. The government’s threshold was introduced based on 2004-05 food prices. The poverty line set by the commission determines whether or not families are eligible for poverty-related schemes, particularly subsidized foodgrains from the government. The Supreme Court has on several previous occasions (the latest being in March), asked the commission to reconsider its methodology in computing the number of poor citizens or increase the thresholds under this method. In March, a bench comprising justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma had said: “We fail to understand the rationale and justification for the cap fixed by the Planning Commission.” In Tuesday’s affidavit, the Planning Commission admitted that as per June 2011 prices, the spending threshold per capita in urban areas is Rs. 32 per day and correspondingly Rs. 26 in rural areas, according to its own provisional analysis. It said it is awaiting data from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) in order to revise the data. In May, the Union government commissioned a new study to make a fresh assessment of poverty levels in India. The commission maintained the current spending by those above the poverty line would be sufficient to meet their basic needs. “The recommended poverty lines ensure the adequacy of actual private expenditure per capita near the poverty lines on food, education and health and the actual calories consumed are close to the revised calorie intake norm for urban areas and higher than the norm in rural areas.” This stance of the union government and particularly the Planning Commission was criticized severly by state governments in the Supreme Court, who claim that the real levels of poverty were much higher on the ground. The states have argued that the Centre has capped poverty levels at 37% to reduce the exchequer’s burden on food subsidies and was in denial about the extent of deprivation. The union government has rebutted, saying that state treasuries should contribute more than their current share to these subsidies. The Planning Commission in a 10 May affidavit had justified its ceiling on poverty, saying it exists because subsidies in India are targeted. The commission claims that for the first time, poverty estimates using the Tendulkar committee method, and using 2009-10 prices are likely to show a reduction in the number of the poor. “The poverty estimates for 2009-10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data, which has become available and the provisional estimates suggest that the total BPL population as per 2009-10 estimation may be lower than that which would have emerged Tendulkar ratio on 2004/05 projection,” it said.