August-2002

Strengthening the panchayats

       Government administration today has assumed extensive dimension and touches people intimately in their day-to-day lives. At the same time, administration today is beset by the ills of procedural delays, a lack of both transparency and responsiveness, the absence of accountability, and the prevalen corruption. Carrying out administrative reforms to uproot these evils and ensure transparent, accountable, responsive and people-friendly administration is an urg necessity. It is also a challenging task.

       Article 40 of the Constitution provides for organising village panchayats and endowing them with powers and functions of self-government. As a result, nearl the states took legislative steps to establish the Panchayati Raj System. The Balvant Rai Mehta Committee prepared a blueprint of Panchayati Raj, including a 3-tier system with transfer of powers, functions, resources and development programme Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs). On this basis, the Panchayati Raj was introduced Nehru in 1959.

       Following this, developments toward ensuring Panchayati Raj faltered, and it was only in 1992 that the 73rd Constitutional Amendment was passed, making mand provisions for the 3-tier structure, reservations for SC/ST candidates, women and OBC's, an independent election commission, and state Finance Commissions. The amendment, however, retained the powers and functions relating to 29 subjects i hands of the State Legislatures. Predictably, only a few states slowed the commitment toward devolution of these powers.

       In Rajasthan, elections to the panchayats are now regularly held, overseen by state election commission. In 2000, over 1.2 lakh representatives were elected to panchayats. Yet, resources allocated for panchayati raj are insignificant. The First Finance Commission recommended that 2.18% of the total state resources be provided to PRIs; the Second Finance Commission's report is awaited. District Planning Committees are handicapped for want of adequate untied resources, since this gives them the most flexibility.

       The Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act (1994) assigned 33 subjects to panchayats, 58 panchayat samitis, and 19 to zilla parishads, but these were subject to 'conditions down by the govermnent'. The govermnent has chosen to delegate very few areas effect the panchayats function as agencies of the state government rather than an independent self-governing bodies. No financial powers have been transferred to PRIs, except committed expenditure on staff salaries. Even when income is generated by the PRIs themselves, their use is regulated by the state government.

       Thats the current malaise, but reforms are in the works, at least on paper. The Rajasthan Government constituted the Administrative Reforms Commission on 11, 1999 under the Chairmanship of none other than the former Chief Minister Shri Shiva Charan Mathur. The Commission was to examine public administration in State and to make recommendations for reforms, re-orientation and reorganisation. The Commission was charged with the task of making recommendations to ensure highest standards of efficiency and integrity in public services. It was to look into structuring the administration for speedy and efficient disposal of work; streamline procedures, rules and regulations toward simplifying systems promoting transparent reducing administrative costs; improving the public grievance redressal system; inducing attitudinal changes for accountability and responsiveness to the public.

       The Commission's recommendations are essentially aimed at charting the path for PRIs to evolve into genuinely self-governing institutions. To enable them to plan implement schemes for economic development and social justice, as mandated constitution, general administrative and maintenance and regulatory functions should be transferred to them. This will strengthen their rather limited role in development. The Commission therefore recommended that the State Govt. should issue clear and unambiguous orders transferring all the subjects enlisted in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 the Act. Wherever any condition is required to be laid down, it may be prescribe under the Rules within a specified period.

      Proposed Panchayati Raj Reforms

The total State budget should be divided in two parts i.e. 'State Sector' and 'District Sector.'

All non-plan/plan funds related to 29 sectors of Schedule 11 of the Constitution and items included in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Act for programmers as for staff should be transferred to PRIs.

A major chunk of plan resources should be allocated to PRIs as 'untied' which should not be less than 40% of the total State plan.

All land revenue should be assigned to PRIs.

A District Equalization/Encouragement Fund should also be created for providing grants to PRIs for correcting regional imbalances and matching contribution to those who have made additions in their income or public contribution.

       A substantial number of the Commission's recommendations relate to vesting lo administrations with decision-making authority and financial control. Several recommendations relate to the organization of sub-state level administrations, including comments over their salaries, independence of work, discipline, accountability to panchayats, etc.

       The realization of decentralized economic development and social justice shall remain only a pious wish unless the PRIs are given powers to generate resources statutory entitlement to share the total revenues of the State. The system of tied currently in use is not adequate. The entire tax revenue of the State should become distributable between State and Local Govt. with the mandatory backing and for law. The Commission recommends that the Second Finance Commission allocate least 30% of state revenues to PRIs. This is comparable to the 29% of Central revenues now being transferred to the states by the Union government.

       The Rajasthan governments response to these recommendations is awaited.

----------------------

December-2002

To Serve and Protect

       Rajasthan's Administrative Reforms Commission makes an exhaustive listing of the needed reforms in the police force.

The Word :

       An efficient, honest police force is the principal bulwark of the nation against violations of basic rights and the maintenance of law and order. From its very origins, however, the Indian police has not been seen in this role. The British created the police forces to wield them as instruments by which to dominate people. Decades after liberation from colonialism, the legacy of this origin remains, and the police are still viewed as agents of state-led repression, and distrustful by ordinary citizens.

       In addition, the police is burdened with a bewildering number and variety of functions beyond law and order, or crime-control. The VIP duties to which personnel are assigned have no valid place within the realm of their work, but remain among the top purposes for which they are used. This has resulted in a number of undesirable features - lack of skill in handling other duties, and huge wastage on non-essential service on the one hand, and the disproportionate power vested in policemen on the other hand. There are also a number of lacunae in our legal systems, which unwittingly hamper police functioning and facilitate the criminals. Our criminal justice system has little recourse to compounding of offences, or punishment through fines instead of sentence to jails. In substantial parts of rural areas police have hardly any presence. As the prosecution wing is not under the control of police, cases prepared by them and put up in the courts fail miserably. Presently the executive magistracy has a significant role to play in law & order. Police strongly feel that this duality of command hampers their performance.

       There have been very few efforts to introduce changes in the police force through national-level reform. Barring the National Police Commission which was set up in 1997 and the Padamnabhaiah Committee established in January 2000 to propose a holistic package of reforms, other attempts in police administrative changes were largely confined to the police establishment itself or to the welfare of the police force, not the citizens. The Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended a number of changes in the functioning of the police. Among the main suggestions are the following. No new Police Station should be opened. Each PS must have a phone, a high frequency wireless set and a jeep/Gypsy. For criminal work there should be a trained dedicated cadre of investigators. Non-police duties can be shifted from police in order to reduce their workload. Guard duties can also be de-linked from police officials. The responsibility to serve summons on persons sought in court should remain with the police, despite the forces' plea against this.

       The arming of 25% of the constables is also recommended. The Commissions does not favour opening of more exclusive women police stations; instead all urban Police Stations should have a woman police cell at SP level. With each Police Station there should be attached a community group. Community policing as an organizational strategy aims at policemen & the community working closely in a creative ways to solve problems of crime and to improve the quality of life. These groups should hold periodical meetings at the Thanas. In urban areas separate specialized investigating teams are necessary for murder, burglary, economic offences and automobile thefts. Police should be empowered to levy fine for stray cattle on roads, encroachments obstructing traffic, consumption of liquor in public places etc. For rural areas, in order to ensure police presence there should be a village chowkidar at each Panchayat level.

       Other recommendations of the Commission include grant of better housing facilities to police personnel, and the facilitation of flexible working hours coupled with mandatory weekly off-days. Motorcycle loans on soft terms may be considered for police constables. Cash for uniforms must be provided to the personnel directly, and the responsibility to obtain them left to the police staff themselves.

       A major issue is the uniqueness of the role played by the police. The district police under the leadership of an SP dated to British times, and continues to act under the general supervision & control of the District Magistrate. Law and order is the joint responsibility of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. The magistracy alone can promulgate section 144 or clamp curfews; the use of forces also to be sanctioned by it. Powers to try cases under various sections of Criminal Procedure Code and Goonda Act vest in the Magistracy. This duality of command structure has caused much bitterness in the Police Department. Police personnel feel that the involvement of magistracy in police affairs has reduced fear of the law among criminals, and caused unnecessary delays and confusions in handling of law and order. In their opinion combining both sets of functions (police & magistracy) in one agency will promote speed, better crime control and healthier law and order situation.

       Protagonists of the status-quo have equally strong reasons to oppose this view. Criminal work, they contend, is the exclusive prerogative of police and the trial takes place in judicial courts. Whereas the transfer of case work, to the police will help, the biggest argument against integration of magisterial powers with police will be its inconsistency with democratic values. If the investigating and apprehending branch is also the arbiter, objectivity and judiciousness may suffer. Further, the presence of an executive magistracy helps to provide an institutionalized mechanism of a 'third party' in the case of mob agitations. Because in such situations the police unavoidably is made to appear a party to the dispute, the executive magistrate often plays the role of mediator.

       The Commission especially recommends that on no account should a First Information Report (FIR) be refused by the police. The different procedures to be followed in cognizable and non-cognizable offences should also be permanently - and prominently - displayed in police stations. Third degree methods should be strictly avoided in all police work. Criminal investigations should be separated from law & order work. There should be a separate expert crime wing for investigative work only.

       These recommendations, the Commission believes, will go a long way towards improving both the morale of the police and the efficiency with which they serve the public.

----------------------