Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that in disregard of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of India incorporated by the Constitution (Seventy-Third Amendment) Act 1992 effectuated with effect from 1.6.1993, the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 (for short 'the 1994 Act') have failed to effectuate the constitutional command. The provisions of the Act fall short of the constitutional mandate in the area of devolution of authority, powers and responsibilities to the Panchayat Bodies; there is no meaningful and effective devolution of administrative and financial powers to the Panchayat bodies under the State Legislation; areas where devolution has been facially provided, has been in substance and reality, to the functionaries and agents appointed by the State over whom the elected representatives have no control; the elected representatives are vouchsafed no discretion or control either in evolving local policy choices, prioritizing developmental areas, executing the policy, initiating the budget or even in implementing the local works. In substantial and critical areas of predominantly local interests and concerns, it is the agents of the State, be they Nodal Officers, Executive Authorities of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishad Development Officers, Chief Executive Authorities of Zilla Parishads, the District Collector or the Commissioner of the Panchayat Raj, and like agents of the State who have been invested determinative decision making authority and responsibility to the exclusion of the elected representatives. It is further the petitioners' case that post Seventy-Third Constitution amendment; the Panchayat Bodies constitute the 3rd tier of the federal system of governance in India. The State action (by statutory and other instruments) denying powers, authority and responsibility to the Panchayat Bodies, constitutes a subversion of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The inadequate and constitutionally unsustainble legislative mechanism is supported, in the area of usurpation of powers of the elected representatives, by statutory rules framed by the State Government and by its executive instructions. The confluence of the State action in this regard (by the legislative provisions, the rules and administrative instructions), negates the Constitution's mandate that Panchayats be units of local self-Government, is the substratum of the petitioners' grievance.

(xi) The officials of the Panchayat Raj Institutions work under the control of the institutions and form part of the institutional set-up. Conferral of power on such officials is equally devolution of powers on the Panchayat Raj Institutions.
(xii) The Panchayat Raj Institutions are distinct from their elected representatives. Powers have been devolved on the Panchayat Raj Institutions. Powers need not be conferred only on elected bodies and representatives. There is no constitutional requirement that powers be not delegated to the officials of the Panchayat Raj Institutions.
(b) The institution of the Panchayat is distinct from its elected representatives. Under the provisions of the Act, every Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad and Zilla Parishad are bodies corporate and, therefore, distinct entities. Endowment of powers and authority and devolution of powers and responsibilities upon the institution constitutes compliance with the requirements postulated by the provisions of Article 243G of the Constitution.
(c) Article 243G of the Constitution merely reiterates the discretion of the State Legislature in respect of the endowment of powers and authority to the Panchayats. The expression "as may be necessary" in Article 243G of the Constitution is an expression denoting the discretion available to the State Legislature to determine what powers and authority should be devolved; to what level of the Panchayat Institutions; to what component of the Panchayat Institutions whether officials or elected representatives; to what degree and in what measure the devolved powers should be apportioned amongst them [George v. Devon County Council (1988 (3) ALL ER 1002) (House of Lords)].
(i) Devolution of powers to Panchayats is not mandated under Article 243G, consequently devolution of powers to Panchayats varies from State to State.

Sri L. Nageswara Rao, the learned Additional Solicitor General for India supplemented the view of the Government of India in its counter-affidavit. The submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General are:

(a) Complete autonomy for the Panchayats to the exclusion of the State is not signalled by the provisions of Part IX.
(b) The parameters of power and authority necessary to enable the Panchayats to function as institutions of self-governance are left to identification at the discretion of State Legislature qua the provisions of Article 243G.