Liberating Panchayat Raj

(taken from the Deccan Herald, 10/5/07)

Panchayat raj institutions should be allowed to function as units of self-government.

By Bapu Heddurshetti

The passing of the recent amendment to the Panchayat Raj Act, empowering a committee headed by the local legislator to select beneficiaries in case the gram sabha fails to do so, has prompted many NGOs to register their protest. However the malady is more deep rooted.

The Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRI) have liberated thousands of women from the straitjacket of traditional roles they have played like that of mother, wife, sister, daughter, etc, and thousands of dalits and backward class people. They have catapulted them into representatives of people and leaders at local levels.
However, a time has come to liberate the PRIs from excessive control by the state government and interference from legislators and realise the mandate of the Constitution of enabling them to function as units of self-government in their true sense of the term.
Departing from the recommendations of the Ashok Mehta Committee for the establishment of a two-tier system, the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution has provided for the establishment of a three-tier system of PRIs.

Powers withdrawn

In pursuance of the Amendment, the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 was enacted. Between 1995 and 2003, the Act was amended 14 times. While the 1997 Amendment Act sought to empower the PRIs as against the government and its officers, the later amendments gradually sought to erode their powers.
In the present Act, the control of the government is all-pervasive. The control is so vast that the state not only uses its officers like tahsildars, assistant and deputy commissioners to control the PRIs but also uses the executive officers of the PRIs themselves, who are appointed by the state government, for the same purpose. For example, the word assistant commissioner has been used 13 times, deputy commissioner 49 times, commissioner 22 times and the word government has been used 330 times in an enactment, which has 321 Sections.
At least in 14 situations the executive officers of the PRIs are given powers over elected bodies and under three provisions they are given powers and responsibilities independent of the elected bodies, resulting in dual loyalties of the officers.
The 73rd Amendment to the Constitution only mandates the constitution of panchayats but leaves everything else to the legislature of the state.
Taking advantage of the majority in the legislature, the executive has conferred upon itself and its officers enormous powers of control, so much so, that the PRIs do not even appear to be units of self-government. For example, the power to reserve seats and offices is retained by the government and using this opportunity it always delays the holding of elections on time as mandated by the Constitution.

Constitution defeated

It is an interesting case of a state using the enabling provisions of the Constitution to defeat the mandatory provisions of the same Constitution. Hence it is necessary that the Constitution should be a Constitution, ie, it should be a mandating basic law and not just an enabling law.
While the state legislation falls short of the expectations of the 73rd Amendment in so far as conferring of powers on PRIs is concerned, it goes well beyond the 73rd Amendment so far as the power to control the PRIs is concerned. For example, the provisions of the Act regarding accounts and audit go way beyond the scope of Article 243 J of the Constitution.
A recent study of the Act by the Institute of Social Sciences on behalf of the Ministry of Panchayat Raj, Government of India, suggested amendments to 73 Sections of the Act to bring it in tune with the 73rd Amendment. While it is necessary on the one hand to amend the state enactment to bring it in tune with the 73rd Amendment, it is also necessary to have a serious re-look at the 73rd Amendment itself in order to enable the PRIs to function as units of self-government.