Rethinking panchayati raj: Ashok Mehta to the 64th Amendment Bill

Detail

Why a rethink was needed

• The Balwantrai Mehta Committee (1957) had set up a three-tier panchayati raj: the village (gram panchayat), the block (panchayat samiti) and the district (zila parishad).
• By the 1970s these bodies had weakened in most states:
• elections were put off again and again;
• panchayats had little money and few real powers;

• state officials did most rural development work.

• Panchayats had no constitutional status. They lived only under state laws. Article 40 (a Directive Principle, which is a goal for the state that no court can enforce) only asked states to organise village panchayats.

Ashok Mehta Committee (1977–78)

• What it was: a committee set up by the Janata government in December 1977 to find the main weaknesses of panchayati raj and suggest a fix [2][3].
• Report: submitted in August 1978, with 132 recommendations. It wanted a system that would support rural development and make planning stronger at the grassroots [2].
• Two tiers in place of three:
• Zila parishad at the district level. It would be the executive body (the body that does the work) and the first point of decentralisation below the state.
• Mandal panchayat: a group of villages with 15,000–20,000 people, placed between the village and the block.
• The block would in time be abolished as a unit of development administration [2].

• All district development functions then done by the state government would move to the zila parishad [2].

• Other proposals:

• Open participation of political parties. Parties could contest panchayat elections on their own symbols.
• Compulsory taxation powers. Panchayats would have to raise their own money, so they would not depend only on state grants.
• Nyaya panchayats (village courts that settle small local disputes) would be separate from development panchayats. The same body would not both judge cases and run development schemes.
• Reservation of seats for SCs and STs, in line with their population.
• A state minister for panchayati raj.
• Regular elections to panchayati raj bodies [2].

• Constitutional recognition, so that panchayats could not easily be ignored or superseded.

• What happened next:

• The Janata government fell (1979) before it could act on the report.
• Some states acted on their own:

State	Step taken
West Bengal	Held party-based panchayat elections in 1978
Karnataka	1983 Act created mandal panchayats; elections held in 1987
Andhra Pradesh	Set up mandal praja parishads

The 1980s rethink: four committees

1. G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985)

• Official name: Committee to Review the Existing Administrative Arrangements for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes (CAARD). It reported in 1985 [2].
• Main finding: rural development had become bureaucratised, meaning officials ran it and elected bodies were pushed aside. It called panchayats "grass without roots": they existed on paper but had no real base.
• Main proposals:
• the district should be the basic unit for planning;
• the district should have an elected zila parishad;
• a District Development Commissioner should act as the zila parishad's chief executive officer.

2. L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986)

• Official name: Committee for the Concept Paper on Panchayati Raj Institutions. It reported in 1986 [2].
• Main proposals:
• constitutional recognition, including protection for regular elections;
• more financial resources for panchayats;

• nyaya panchayats for clusters of villages.

• It called the gram sabha (the meeting of all adult voters of a village) the embodiment of direct democracy. Direct democracy means people decide matters themselves, not only through elected representatives.

• The committees of this period agreed that the Constitution needed a provision to give panchayats proper status and make sure they kept working without breaks [2].

3. P.K. Thungon Committee (1988–89)

• A sub-committee of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee (NCERT Class 11 dates it 1989).
• Main proposals:
• constitutional status for panchayats;
• periodic elections;
• a five-year term;
• a list of functions and funds for panchayats.

4. Gadgil Committee (1988)

• A Congress party committee on policy and programmes, chaired by V.N. Gadgil.
• Main proposals:
• three tiers (village, block, district);
• direct elections to all three tiers;
• a five-year term;
• reservation for SCs, STs and women;

• constitutional status.

• Why it matters: these ideas shaped the 64th Amendment Bill (1989) and, later, the 73rd Amendment.

Comparison of the committees

Committee	Year	Tiers / unit	Key idea
Balwantrai Mehta	1957	Three tiers	Democratic decentralisation
Ashok Mehta	1978	Two tiers (zila parishad + mandal panchayat)	Parties allowed; compulsory taxation
G.V.K. Rao	1985	District as the planning unit	"Grass without roots"; District Development Commissioner
L.M. Singhvi	1986	Village clusters for nyaya panchayats	Gram sabha as direct democracy; constitutional recognition
P.K. Thungon	1988–89	—	Constitutional status; five-year term
Gadgil	1988	Three tiers	Direct elections; reservations; constitutional status

Constitution (64th Amendment) Bill, 1989

• What it was: a bill moved by the Rajiv Gandhi government to add a new Part IX on panchayats to the Constitution [4].

• How a constitutional amendment passes (Article 368): 1. The bill can be introduced in either House of Parliament. 2. Each House must pass it by a special majority: a majority of the House's total membership, plus two-thirds of members present and voting. 3. There is no joint sitting if the Houses disagree. If one House rejects the bill, it fails. 4. Some amendments also need ratification (approval) by half the state legislatures. 5. The bill then goes to the President, who must give assent.

• What happened:

• Passed by the Lok Sabha in August 1989.

• Defeated in the Rajya Sabha in October 1989 [4].

• Why it was opposed:

• Critics said the Centre would deal directly with panchayats and go over the heads of the states. Local government is a state subject (Entry 5, State List, Seventh Schedule).

• The opposition saw this as a threat to federalism (the sharing of power between the Centre and the states).

• Uniformity: in 1989 the Centre brought two amendments, one for panchayats and one for nagarpalikas (urban local bodies), "to ensure an element of uniformity" across states.

From failure to the 73rd Amendment

• V.P. Singh government bill (1990): introduced but lapsed when the government fell.
• Narasimha Rao government bill (1991):
• Introduced as the Constitution (72nd Amendment) Bill, 1991.
• Referred in December 1991 to a Joint Committee of both Houses (a committee of members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha that studies a bill in detail) [5].
• As reported by the Joint Committee, it provided [5]:
  • three tiers: village, intermediate and district level;
  • states with a population of not more than 20 lakh could skip the intermediate tier;
  • a fixed five-year term, with elections due every five years;
  • fresh elections within six months if a panchayat is dissolved;
  • reservation for SCs, STs and women.

• Passed in December 1992 and became the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act, 1992.

• Result:

• Part IX ("The Panchayats", Articles 243 to 243-O) was inserted, giving panchayats constitutional status [6].
• The Eleventh Schedule lists 29 subjects for panchayats.
• The Act came into force on 24 April 1993, now marked as National Panchayati Raj Day.
• The urban counterpart, the 74th Amendment Act, 1992, added Part IXA on municipalities.

Prelims Hooks

• Ashok Mehta Committee — appointed by the Janata government in December 1977; reported in August 1978; 132 recommendations; proposed two tiers (zila parishad + mandal panchayat).
• Mandal panchayat — a group of villages with 15,000–20,000 people (Ashok Mehta). Karnataka created them by its 1983 Act and held elections in 1987.
• First state to hold party-based panchayat elections: West Bengal (1978).
• "Grass without roots" — G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985, CAARD); it made the district the basic planning unit.
• Gram sabha as "the embodiment of direct democracy" — L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986).
• Gadgil Committee (1988) was a Congress party committee, not a government one. Its ideas shaped the 64th Amendment Bill.
• 64th Amendment Bill (1989) passed the Lok Sabha but was defeated in the Rajya Sabha (October 1989). A joint sitting cannot be used for constitutional amendments.
• Trap: the 73rd Amendment was introduced as the 72nd Amendment Bill (1991). Bill numbers and Act numbers differ.
• Trap: separating nyaya panchayats from development panchayats was an Ashok Mehta idea. Nyaya panchayats for village clusters were proposed by Singhvi.
• The block as a unit of development administration was to be abolished under Ashok Mehta, not under G.V.K. Rao.

Mains Points

• Centralisation vs federalism: the 64th Amendment Bill failed because states feared the Centre would reach panchayats directly and bypass them. The 73rd Amendment kept local government with the states: state laws decide which powers panchayats get (Article 243G). This settled the federal worry, but it also left devolution (the actual handing over of powers and money) uneven across states.
• Bureaucracy vs democracy: the G.V.K. Rao Committee showed how officials took over rural development ("grass without roots"). This argument still applies today, as many state-run schemes run alongside panchayats instead of through them.
• Party politics in panchayats: Ashok Mehta backed open participation by political parties (West Bengal, 1978). For: this brings accountability and clearer policy choices. Against: it brings party conflict into village life. Useful for GS-II answers on grassroots democracy.
• Two tiers vs three tiers: Ashok Mehta preferred a strong district with mandal panchayats. Gadgil and the 73rd Amendment chose three tiers, with an exception for small states (population of 20 lakh or less). This shows the trade-off between closeness to people and the ability to plan.