question_answer

Despite the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments, except in a few states, there has been little progress at decentralisation-to both rural and urban local bodies. Most state governments have been reluctant to devolve the functions, funds and functionaries for delivering public services at the local level.

The functions assigned are unclear, funds uncertain and inadequate, and decision-making functionaries are mostly drawn from the state bureaucracy. Local bodies do not even have powers to determine the base and rate structure of the taxes assigned to them.

The states have not cared to create institutions and systems mandated in the Constitution, including the appointment of the State Finance Commissions, and even when they are appointed, states have not found it obligatory to place their reports in the legislature.

In fact, the local bodies are not clear about delivering local public goods, with the prominent agenda of implementing central schemes obscuring their functions.

Admittedly, despite the landmark amendments, the effort at decentralisation reform has essentially been top-down. Part IX was inserted into the Constitution with Article 243 (A to O) specifying matters such as the constitution of local bodies, elections and the functions to be devolved under Schedules 11, 12, and 243 (I and Y) mandating the appointment of the State Finance Commissions by the Governor every five years to balance their functions with funds.

Article 280 was seeded with an additional term of reference to the Union Finance Commission to recommend measures for augmenting the consolidated funds of the states to supplement the resources of local bodies.

The major '‘birth defect'’ of the entire process is that the ownership and responsibility for local governments rests squarely with the state government ensnarled in Entry 5 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule. Thus, the Constitution vests the responsibility of creating and sustaining local bodies entirely to the discretion of the state governments.

Article 243 (G and W), relating to the powers, authority and responsibilities to rural and urban local bodies, merely specifies that the state governments, "“....may, by law, endow the panchayats and municipalities with powers and authority to enable them as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon these bodies subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to the preparation of economic development and social justice, performance of functions and implementation of schemes entrusted to them including those specified in the 12th Schedule”."

Thus, it is entirely left for the states to decide, what and how much powers and functions should be devolved to the third level.

There are no easy mechanisms to ensure compliance of even the provisions prescribed in the Constitution by the states. Most states have not complied with the requirement of appointing Gram Sabhas (243 A), Ward Committees (243), District Planning Committees and Metropolitan Planning Committees.

There have been several attempts to postpone elections though they are required to hold them well before the expiry of the prevailing elected body or before six months if the body is dissolved for some reason, as required under 243 K and U.

Although under Article 243 (I) and (Y), the states are required to appoint State Finance Commissions and place the reports received in the legislature, their records show complete violations of the Constitutional provisions.

What is the major birth defect of the entire process relating to the local bodies according to the author?

A) It rests entirely with the state governments

B) It rests entirely with the central government

C) It is in the concurrent list

D) It rests entirely with the local bodies