Fiscal devolution to local bodies remains uneven across India despite constitutional mandates. Examine with reference to Kerala's People's Plan Campaign.

Articles 243G and 243H empower but do not compel States to endow panchayats with funds, functions and functionaries [1]. Devolution therefore turns on State political will — and Kerala's People's Plan Campaign (PPC, 1996) demonstrates what that will can achieve.

Why the mandate under-delivers

• Enabling, not obligatory, language: Articles 243H and 243X leave the assignment of taxes and grants entirely to State legislation [1].
• State Finance Commissions are constituted irregularly and their recommendations often go unimplemented, leaving local bodies without an assured revenue base [1].
• Tied transfers dominate: Finance Commission grants are routed through line ministries for specified purposes, so local bodies spend as agents rather than as governments [3].
• Capacity deficits — shortage of trained functionaries and reliable local databases — limit absorption even where funds flow.

Evidence of unevenness

• The Ministry of Panchayati Raj's Devolution Index 2024 records overall devolution rising only from 39.9% (2013-14) to 43.9% (2021-22) [2].
• The spread is wide: Karnataka and Kerala lead, while Puducherry, Ladakh and Dadra & Nagar Haveli–Daman & Diu rank lowest [2].
• The national People's Plan Campaign, "Sabki Yojana Sabka Vikas", standardises Gram Sabha-based Panchayat Development Plans, but planning without untied funds stays advisory [4].

Kerala's PPC: the deviant case

• Launched in 1996 during the Ninth Plan, it shifted a substantial share of the State's plan outlay from the bureaucracy to local governments, jointly steered by the Local Self-Government Department and the State Planning Board [5].
• Gram Sabhas became genuine priority-setting forums under the Kerala Panchayati Raj and Municipality Acts, giving expenditure autonomy, not merely responsibility [5].
• Outcome: Kerala ranks second nationally on the Devolution Index [2]; the proposed PPC 2.0 now seeks digital coordination and youth participation [5].

Unevenness is thus a product of State-level choice, not constitutional limitation. Binding activity mapping, timely SFCs and a larger untied share can generalise Kerala's lesson — converting the 73rd and 74th Amendments' promise of self-government into fiscal reality.