Rural Development & Panchayat Raj - Panchayat Raj : Status of PRIs

The Government of Tamil Nadu has had reservations regarding certain aspects of the 73rd Constitutional amendment and our experience of working under the new system for the past 12 years has only confirmed the same. The system prevailing under the old Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1958 wherein the Presidents of Village Panchayats were ex-officio members of the Panchayat Union Council at the Block level ensured organic linkage between the two tiers. Hence, the name ‘Panchayat Union’ and it genuinely functioned as a ‘union’ of Village Panchayats. Since the Village Panchayat Presidents themselves ‘doubled up’ as ex-officio members of the Panchayat Union Council, there were no separate ward members for the Council. Having separate ward members for Panchayat Unions (6,570 for the State as a whole) and District Panchayats (656) has vastly increased the number of ‘members’ and has paved the way for inter-tier friction and disharmony. Although Article 243 C (3) of the Constitution states that a State may, by law, provide for the representation of Village Panchayat Presidents on the Panchayat Union Council and Panchayat Union Chairpersons on the District Panchayat, this arrangement is not satisfactory because it can render the Panchayat Union Councils and District Panchayats too unwieldy with too many members and can create disharmony between the two distinct power blocs within each Council. Hence, Tamil Nadu has not invoked Article 243 C (3). The lack of organic linkages between the three tiers results in a scenario where each tier is unaware of what the other two tiers are doing. It often leads to duplication in the selection of works and avoidable paperwork and loss of time in reworking the choices. Tamil Nadu has been pressing for the reversion to the 1958 model where the Presidents of Village Panchayats were ex-officio members of the Panchayat Union Council at the Block level.

Under the 1958 Act, the Chairpersons of the Panchayat Union Council could be either directly or indirectly elected. Most of the time, Tamil Nadu had direct elections for the posts of Chairpersons of Panchayat Unions and this arrangement was found to be working well as the Chairperson commanded respect and there was no scope for vexatious no-confidence motions. But after the 73rd amendment, the Constitution itself stipulates that Chairpersons of Panchayat Unions and District Panchayats should be elected indirectly. Only in the case of elections of Village Panchayat Presidents, the States have the freedom to opt for either direct election or indirect election. The State Government has been pressing that the States should have similar freedom in respect of elections of Chairpersons of Panchayat Unions and District Panchayats.

The Government of Tamil Nadu have, for long held the view that there should have been a single consolidated Amendment to the Constitution covering both rural and urban Local Bodies instead of two Amendments – one covering rural Local Bodies (73rd) and the other urban Local Bodies (74th). This ‘compartmentalization’ has resulted in a scenario whereby the District Panchayat – instead of being a nodal body responsible for coordinating and monitoring all the rural and urban Local Bodies in the district – finds that its jurisdiction is confined only to the rural areas. In a State like Tamil Nadu with about 42% urban population, and with several highly urbanised districts such as Kanniyakumari (66%), Coimbatore (62%), The Nilgiris (58%), Theni (54%) and Madurai (52%), the argument that the District Panchayat should become a nodal body responsible for coordinating and monitoring the development activities in the entire district becomes weak. A system whereby all the Chairpersons of Panchayat Unions, Municipalities and Town Panchayats are ex-officio members of the District Panchayats, with the Chairman of the District Panchayat being either directly or indirectly elected would have been more meaningful and credible. This weakness has been sought to be overcome through the District Planning Committee which has members drawn from both rural and urban Local Bodies, but its composition is flawed because there is no representation for Panchayat Union and Village Panchayat members on it.

A mention was made in His Excellency the Governor’s Address in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in 2006 that the Tamil Nadu would press for the amendment of the Constitution seeking a two tier system of Panchayats and the abolition of District Panchayats. Tamil Nadu did have powerful elected District Boards till they were abolished in 1961. In their place, the District Development Council, an advisory-cum-planning body, comprising all the MPs, MLAs, Chairpersons of Panchayat Unions, Town Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations in the district with the District Collector as Chairman were set up. The Government of Tamil Nadu believes that Village Panchayats and Panchayat Unions are the two tiers closest to the people, qualifying for the appellation ‘local’ and represent the ‘cutting edge’ of Local Self-Government. These two tiers need to be strong and vibrant and strengthened further. This Government is of the opinion that the reasons which led to the abolition of the old District Boards are still valid and applicable to the third tier of District Panchayat, which at present has only an advisory-cum-planning role. At the same time, this Government is aware that other States may have different views on this topic based on their own past legacy. For example, some States want Village and District Panchayats but do not want the intermediate tier (Block or Taluk Panchayat). But there is a general consensus that there is one tier too many under the present system.

It may be noted that with regard to the States, the Legislative Assembly is mandatory while the Legislative Council is optional as per the Constitution. Similarly, in order to accommodate divergent needs, the Constitution may be so amended so as to make the Village Panchayats mandatory for all the States and leaving it to the discretion of the concerned State Legislatures whether to have the intermediate Panchayats only or District Panchayats only or both. The State Government would press for such amendment to the Constitution.