Panchayati Raj

The term Panchayati Raj in India signifies the system of rural local self-government. It was constitutionalised through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992.
The fifth entry of the State List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India deals with ‘local government’.
Rajasthan was the first state to establish Panchayati Raj. The scheme was inaugurated by the prime minister on October 2, 1959, in Nagaur district. Rajasthan was followed by Andhra Pradesh, which also adopted the system in 1959.

Evolution of Panchayati Raj:

Balwantrai Mehta Committee:

In January 1957, the Government of India appointed a committee to examine the working of the Community Development Programme (1952) and the National Extension Service (1953) and to suggest measures for their better working.
The chairman of this committee was Balwantrai G Mehta.
It recommended the establishment of the scheme of ‘democratic decentralisation’, which ultimately came to be known as Panchayati Raj.

Balwantrai Mehta Committee recommendations:

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

Establishment of a three-tier panchayati raj system:
1. Gram panchayat at the village level,
2. Panchayat samiti at the block level and
3. Zila parishad at the district level.
These tiers should be linked through indirect elections.
The village panchayat should be constituted with directly elected representatives, whereas the panchayat samiti and zila parishad should be constituted with indirectly elected members.
All planning and development activities should be entrusted to these bodies.
The panchayat samiti should be the executive body while the zila parishad should be the advisory, coordinating and supervisory body.
The district collector should be the chairman of the zila parishad.
There should be a genuine transfer of power and responsibility to these democratic bodies.
Adequate resources should be transferred to these bodies to enable them to discharge their functions and fulfil their responsibilities.
A system should be evolved to effect further devolution of authority in future.

In the Rajasthan–Andhra Pradesh pattern, Panchayat Samiti was powerful as the block was the unit of planning and development, while in Maharashtra–Gujarat pattern, zila parishad was powerful as the district was the unit of planning and development.

Ashok Mehta Committee recommendations:

In December 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee on panchayati raj institutions under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta. Due to the collapse of the Janata Government before the completion of its term, no action could be taken on the recommendations of the Ashok Mehta Committee at the central level. However, the three states of Karnataka, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh took steps to revitalise the panchayati raj, keeping in view some of the recommendations of the Ashok Mehta Committee.

Main recommendations of Ashok Mehta Committee were:

The three-tier system of panchayati raj should be replaced by the two-tier system, that is, zila parishad at the district level, and below it, the mandal panchayat consisting of a group of villages with a total population of 15,000 to 20,000.
A district should be the first point for decentralisation under popular supervision below the state level.
Zila parishad should be the executive body and made responsible for planning at the district level.
There should be an official participation of political parties at all levels of panchayat elections.
The panchayati raj institutions should have compulsory powers of taxation to mobilise their own financial resources.
There should be a regular social audit by a district level agency and by a committee of legislators to check whether the funds allotted for the vulnerable social and economic groups are actually spent on them.
The state government should not supersede the panchayati raj institutions. In case of an imperative supersession, elections should be held within six months from the date of supersession.
The nyaya panchayats should be kept as separate bodies from that of development panchayats. They should be presided over by a qualified judge.
The chief electoral officer of a state in consultation with the chief election commissioner should organise and conduct the panchayati raj elections.
Development functions should be transferred to the zila parishad and all development staff should work under its control and supervision.
The voluntary agencies should play an important role in mobilising the support of the people for panchayati raj.
A minister for Panchayati Raj should be appointed in the state council of ministers to look after the affairs of the panchayati raj institutions.
Seats for SCs and STs should be reserved on the basis of their population.
A constitutional recognition should be accorded to the Panchayati Raj institutions. This would give them the requisite status (sanctity and stature) and an assurance of continuous functioning.

G.V.K. Rao Committee:

The Committee to review the existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes under the chairmanship of G.V.K. Rao was appointed by the erstwhile Planning Commission in 1985.
The Committee came to the conclusion that the developmental process was gradually bureaucratised and divorced from the Panchayati Raj.
This phenomena of bureaucratisation of development administration as against the democratisation weakened the Panchayati Raj institutions resulting in what is aptly called as ‘grass without roots’.

Main recommendations of G.V.K. Rao Committee were:

The district is the proper unit for planning and development and the Zila Parishad should become the principal body for management of all development programmes which can be handled at that level.
The Panchayati Raj institutions at the district and lower levels should be assigned an important role with respect to planning, implementation and monitoring of rural development programmes.
Some of the planning functions at the state level should be transferred to the district level planning units for effective decentralized district planning.
A post of District Development Commissioner should be created. He/she should act as the chief executive officer of the Zila Parishad and should be in charge of all the development departments at the district level.
Elections to the Panchayati Raj institutions should be held regularly. It found that elections became overdue for one or more tiers in 11 states.

Thus the committee, in its scheme of decentralised system of field administration, assigned a leading role to the Panchayati Raj in local planning and development.

It is in this respect that the recommendations of the G.V.K. Rao Committee Report (1986) differed from those of the Dantwala Committee Report on Block-Level Planning (1978) and the Hanumantha Rao Committee Report on District Planning (1984). Both the committees have suggested that the basic decentralised planning function should be done at the district level.
The Hanumantha Rao Committee advocated separate district planning bodies under either the District Collector or a minister.
In both the models, the Collector should play a significant role in the decentralised planning though the Committee stated that Panchayati Raj institutions would also be associated with this process (of decentralised planning).
The committee recommended that the Collector should be the coordinator, at the district level, of all developmental and planning activities. Thus, the Hanumantha Rao Committee differed in this respect from those of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee, the First Administrative Reforms Commission of India, the Ashok Mehta Committee and finally the G.V.K. Rao Committee which recommended reduction in the developmental role of the District Collector and which assigned a major role to the Panchayati Raj in development administration.

L M Singhvi Committee recommendations:

In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi government appointed a committee to prepare a concept paper on ‘Revitalisation of Panchayati Raj Institutions for Democracy and Development’ under the chairmanship of L.M. Singhvi. It made the following recommendations:

The Panchayati Raj institutions should be constitutionally recognised, protected and preserved. It also suggested constitutional provisions to ensure regular, free and fair elections to the Panchayati Raj bodies.
Nyaya Panchayats should be established for a cluster of villages.
The villages should be reorganised to make Gram Panchayats more viable. It also emphasised the importance of the Gram Sabha and called it as the embodiment of direct democracy.
The Village Panchayats should have more financial resources.
The judicial tribunals should be established in each state to adjudicate controversies about election to the Panchayati Raj institutions, their dissolution and other matters related to their functioning.

Thungon Committee:

In 1988, a sub-committee of the Consultative Committee of Parliament was constituted under the chairmanship of P.K. Thungon to examine the political and administrative structure in the district for the purpose of district planning. This committee suggested for the strengthening of the Panchayati Raj system. It made the following recommendations:

The Panchayati Raj bodies should be constitutionally recognized.
A three-tier system of Panchayati Raj with panchayats at the village, block and district levels.
Zilla Parishad should be the pivot of the Panchayati Raj system. It should act as the planning and development agency in the district.
The Panchayati Raj bodies should have a fixed tenure of five years.
The maximum period of super session of a body should be six months.
A planning and co-ordination committee should be set-up at the state level under the chairmanship of the minister for planning. The presidents of Zilla Parishads should be its members.
A detailed list of subjects for Panchayati Raj should be prepared and incorporated in the Constitution.
Reservation of seats in all the three-tiers should be on the basis of population. There should also be reservation for women.
A state finance commission should be set-up in each state. It would lay down the criteria and guidelines for the devolution of finances to the Panchayati Raj institutions.
The district collector should be the chief executive officer of the Zilla Parishad.

Gadgil Committee:

The Committee on Policy and Programmes was constituted in 1988 by the Congress party under the chairmanship of V.N. Gadgil. This committee was asked to consider the question of “how best Panchayati Raj institutions could be made effective”. In this context, the committee made the following recommendations:

A constitutional status should be bestowed on the Panchayati Raj institutions.
A three-tier system of Panchayati Raj with panchayats at the village, block and district levels.
The term of Panchayati Raj institutions should be fixed at five years.
The members of the Panchayats at all the three levels should be directly elected.
Reservation for SCs, STs and women.
The Panchayati Raj bodies should have the responsibility of preparation and implementation of plans for socio-economic development. For this purpose, a list of subjects should be specified in the constitution.
The Panchayat Raj bodies should be empowered to levy, collect and appropriate taxes and duties.
Establishment of a State Finance Commission for the allocation of finances to the Panchayats.
Establishment of a State Election Commission for the conduction of elections to the panchayats.

The above recommendations of the Gadgil Committee became the basis for drafting an amendment bill aimed at conferring the constitutional status and protection to the Panchayati Raj institutions.