Daily Quiz: UPSC Prelims Marathon – May 2, 2018

Option c is correct. In 1983, the Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre–state relations under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court. The commission was asked to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Centre and states in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures. It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later officially released in January 1988.

A second commission on centre state relations  was MM Punchhi Commission

This commission was set up by UPA Government in 2007 and it gave its recommendations in 2010. The key recommendations are as follows:

• There should be a consultation process between union and states via Interstate Council for legislation on concurrent subjects.
• Regarding state bills, the President’s pocket veto is baffling because no communication is given to the state when president decides to withhold assent. This should end and there should be a reasonable time (6 months) in which president communicates his decision.
• The treaty making powers of union should be regulated and states should get greater participation in treaties where interests of states are involved etc.

The Panchayati Raj system was adopted to decentralize powers of democracy, give power in the hands of people and contribute towards rural development. As per the Constitution, Panchayats in their respective areas would prepare plans for economic development and social justice and also execute them. To facilitate this, states are supposed to devolve functions to Panchayats (29 subjects as mandated) and also make funds available for doing these (as per State Finance Commission’s recommendations). The functions of Panchayats are divided among different Committees (as ministries are formed in state and union governments), which are called Standing Committees/Sthayee Samitis/Upa Samitis etc. One of the members remains in charge of each of such committees while the over-all charge rests with the chairperson of the Panchayat. Panchayats are supported by a host of other of officials, the number of which varies from state to state.

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 Balwant Rai G Mehta. The committee submitted its report in November 1957 and recommended the establishment of the scheme of ‘democratic decentralisation’, which ultimately came to be known as Panchayati Raj.

G V K Rao Committee

The Committee on Administrative Arrangement for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation Programmes under the chairmanship of G.V.K. Rao was appointed by the Planning Commission in 1985. The Committee came to 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’

L M Singhvi Committee

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

(i) The Panchayati Raj institutions should be constitutionally recognised, protected and preserved. For this purpose, a new chapter should be added in the Constitution of India. This will make their identity and integrity reasonably and substantially inviolate. It also suggested constitutional provisions to ensure regular, free and fair elections to the Panchayati Raj Bodies. (ii) Nyaya Panchayats should be established for a cluster of villages etc.

Ashok Mehta Committee

In December 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee on panchayati raj institutions under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta. It submitted its report in August 1978 and made 132 recommendations to revive and strengthen the declining panchayati raj system in the country.

Article 32 confers the right to remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen. In other words, the right to get the Fundamental Rights protected is in itself a fundamental right. This makes the fundamental rights real. That is why Dr Ambedkar called Article 32 as the most important article of the Constitution—‘an Article without which this constitution would be a nullity. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it’.

243C. Composition of Panchayats

Subject to the provisions of this Part, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provisions with respect to the composition of Pancayats: Provided that the ratio between the population of the territorial area of a Panchayat at any level and the number of seats in such Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the State.

Part IX provides for a 3 tier Panchayat system, which would be constituted in every state at the village level, intermediate level and district level. This provision brought the uniformity in the Panchayati Raj structure in India.  However, the states which were having population below 20 Lakh were given an option to not to have the intermediate level.

In the Shankari Prasad case 4 (1951), the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. The word ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws). Therefore, the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amendment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13.

But in the Golak Nath cases (1967), the Supreme Court reversed its earlier stand. In that case, the constitutional validity of the Seventh Amendment Act, which inserted certain state acts in the Ninth Schedule, was challenged. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fundamental Rights are given a ‘transcendental and immutable’ position and hence, the Parliament cannot abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights. A constitutional amendment act is also a law within the meaning of Article 13 and hence, would be void for violating any of the Fundamental Rights. Again, the Parliament reacted to this judicially innovated doctrine of ‘basic structure’ by enacting the 42nd Amendment Act (1976). This Act amended Article 368 and declared that there is no limitation on the constituent power of Parliament and no amendment can be questioned in any court on any ground including the contravention of any of the fundamental rights

However, the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision as it excludes judicial review which is a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution. Again in the Waman Rao case 8 (1981), the Supreme Court adhered to the doctrine of the ‘basic structure’ and further clarified that it would apply to constitutional amendments enacted after April 24, 1973 (i.e., the date of the judgement in the Kesavananda Bharati case).