The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act

It was a political drive to see PRIs as a solution to the governmental crises that India was experiencing. The Constitutional (73rd Amendment) Act, passed in 1992 by the Narashima Rao government, came into force on April 24, 1993. It was meant to provide constitutional sanction to establish "democracy at the grassroots level as it is at the state level or national level". Its main features are as follows:

1. The Gram Sabha or village assembly as a deliberative body to decentralised governance has been envisaged as the foundation of the Panchayati Raj System.
2. A uniform three-tier structure of panchayats at village (Gram Panchayat - GP), intermediate (Panchayat Samiti - PS) and district (Zilla Parishad - ZP) levels.
3. All the seats in a panchayat at every level are to be filled by elections from respective territorial constituencies.
4. Not less than one-third of the total seats for membership as well as office of chairpersons of each tier has to be reserved for women.
5. Reservations for weaker castes and tribes (SCs and STs) have to be provided at all levels in proportion to their population in the panchayats.
6. To supervise, direct and control the regular and smooth elections to panchayats, a State Election Commission has to be constituted in every State and UT.
7. The Act has ensured constitution of a State Finance Commission in every State/UT, for every five years, to suggest measures to strengthen finances of PRIs.
8. To promote bottom-up-planning, the District Planning Committee [DPC] in every district has been accorded constitutional status.
9. An indicative list of 29 items has been given in Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution. Panchayats are expected to play an effective role in planning and implementation of works related to these 29 items.

Brief History of Panchyati Raj in Post Independence India

The Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957)

In 1957, Balwantrai Mehta Committee studied the community development projects and the National Extension Service and assessed the extent to which the movement had succeeded in utilising local initiatives and in creating institutions to ensure continuity in the process of improving economic and social conditions in rural areas. The Committee held that community development would only be deep and enduring when the community was involved in the planning, decision-making and implementation process The specific recommendations of the committee are:

1. Establishment of a 3-tier Panchayati Raj system-Gram Panchayat at the village level, Panchayat Samiti at the block level, and Zila Parishad at the district level. These tiers should be organically linked through a device of indirect elections.
2. The village Panchayat should be constituted with directly elected representatives, whereas the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad should be constituted with indirectly elected members.
3. All planning and developmental activities should be entrusted to these bodies.
4. The Panchayat Samiti should be the executive body while the Zila Parishad should be the advisory, coordinating and supervisory body.
5. The District Collector should be the Chairman of the Zila Parishad.
6. There should be a genuine transfer of power and responsibility to these democratic bodies.
7. Sufficient resources should be transferred to these bodies to enable them to discharge their functions and fulfil their responsibilities.
8. A system should be evolved to effect further devolution of authority in future.

These recommendations were accepted by the National Development Council in January 1958

 K. Santhanam Committee (1963)

One of the prime areas of concern in this long debate on panchayati raj institutions was fiscal decentralisation. The K. Santhanam Committee was appointed to look solely at the issue of PRI finance, in 1963. The fiscal capacity of PRIs tends to be limited, as rich resources of revenue are pre-empted by higher levels of government, and issue is still debated today. The Committee was asked to determine issues related to sanctioning of grants to PRIs by the state government, evolving mutual financial relations between the three tiers of PRIs, gifts and donation, handing over revenue in full or part to PRIs. The Committee recommended the following:

1. Panchayats should have special powers to levy special tax on land revenues and home taxes, etc.,
2. People should not be burdened with too many demands (taxes),
3. All grants and subventions at the state level should be mobilised and sent in a consolidated form to various PRIs,
4. A Panchayat Raj Finance Corporation should be set up to look into the financial resource of PRIs at all levels, provide loans and financial assistance to these grassroots level governments and also provide non-financial requirements of villages.

These issues have been debated over the last three decades and have been taken up by the State Finance Commissions which are required to select taxes for assignment and sharing, identifying the principles for such sharing and assignment, determine the level of grants and recommend the final distribution of state's transfers to local authorities.

Ashok Mehta Committee (1978)

With the coming of the Janata Party into power at the Centre in 1977, a serious view was taken of the weaknesses in the functioning of Panchayati Raj. It was decided to appoint a high-level committee under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta to examine and suggest measures to strengthen PRIs. The Committee had to evolve an effective decentralised system of development for PRIs. They made the following recommendations.

1. The district is a viable administrative unit for which planning, co-ordination and resource allocation are feasible and technical expertise available,
2. PRIs as a two-tier system, with Mandal Panchayat at the base and Zilla Parishad at the top,
3. The PRIs are capable of planning for themselves with the resources available to them,
4. District planning should take care of the urban-rural continuum,
5. Representation of SCs and STs in the election to PRIs on the basis of their population,
6. Four-year term of PRIs,
7. Participation of political parties in elections,
8. Any financial devolution should be committed to accepting that much of the developmental functions at the district level would be played by the panchayats.

The states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal passed new legislation based on this report. However, the flux in politics at the state level did not allow these institutions to develop their own political dynamics.

G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985)

The G.V.K.Rao Committee was appointed to once again look at various aspects of PRIs. The Committee was of the opinion that a total view of rural development must be taken in which PRIs must play a central role in handling people's problems. It recommended the following:-

1. PRIs have to be activated and provided with all the required support to become effective organisations,
2. PRIs at the district level and below should be assigned the work of planning, implementation and monitoring of rural development programmes, and
3. The block development office should be the spinal cord of the rural development process.

L.M.Singhvi Committee (1986)

L.M. Singhvi Committee studied panchayatiraj. The Gram Sabha was considered as the base of a decentralised democracy, and PRIs viewed as institutions of self-governance which would actually facilitate the participation of the people in the process of planning and development. It recommended

1. Local self-government should be constitutionally recognised, protected and preserved by the inclusion of new chapter in the Constitution,
2. Non-involvement of political parties in Panchayat elections.

The suggestion of giving panchayats constitutional status was opposed by the Sarkaria Commission, but the idea, however, gained momentum in the late 1980s especially because of the endorsement by the late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, who introduced the 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill in 1989. The 64th Amendment Bill was prepared and introduced in the lower house of Parliament. But it got defeated in the Rajya Sabha as non-convincing. He lost the general elections too. In 1989, the National Front introduced the 74th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which could not become an Act because of the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha. All these various suggestions and recommendations and means of strengthening PRIs were considered while formulating the new Constitutional Amendment Act.