Federalism and Local Self Government on India: The Dichotomy and their Harmonious Existence

THE DICHOTOMY AND THEIR HARMONIOUS EXISTENCE

The issue of jurisdictional overlap between federal and local bodies, which causes conflicts in decision-making and implementation, is one of the constant issues with India’s federal structure. This dichotomy results from the complexities involved in drawing boundaries between the authority of local self-governance institutions and the federal government. Instances of jurisdictional overlap between the central and state governments in India are not uncommon, leading to conflicts in decision-making and implementation. These overlaps can be in various areas such as Education, Healthcare, Planning and several other regulations.  Another element of the dichotomy present in India’s federal structure is the difficulty in allocating resources among the various tiers of government. The financial independence of local governments is largely determined by fiscal federalism, and unequal resource distribution can make decentralised governance less successful. The centralization of resource distribution frequently leads to inequalities, limiting the amount of money available to local governments for necessary services and projects. Local self-governance institutions may find it difficult to effectively meet local needs, even while the central government may still have control over substantial financial resources. This disparity may make it more difficult for grassroots development projects to be implemented successfully, which would impede the general advancement of local communities.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

In reality, the country’s centralised planning system, which it has followed for more than 40 years, has severally constrained local autonomy. It follows that such restrictions would be apparent at the Panchayat levels as well when they function at the State level. In view of this, the Central Government, which sits at the top of the federal pyramid, is tasked with fostering and supporting efficient panchayats at the base of the federal pyramid.[i] Due to the snug implementation constraints and restricted availability of untied funds, PRIs are typically run by state governments rather than local government entities. This could be resolved by making a strict demarcation of the limits of Planning Commission, and reducing it to Local Bodies, so that these can make the local plans more meaningful for the local people.

Moreover, Financial Autonomy is one other aspect which can help the Local Governments to be self reliant and exist harmoniously with the federal structure. Sufficient financial resources and unhindered funds are essential for the effective execution of duties delegated to any Panchayat. The Union Finance Commission was mandated by Article 280(3)(bb) of the Constitution to advise the President on the steps that should be taken to increase a State’s consolidated fund in order to supplement the panchayats’ resources.[ii] In order to link the availability of funds to the performance of the duties that the local bodies have been given by their respective State Governments, in order to increase the funds of the PRIs, it is imperative that the Central Finance Commission be strongly encouraged to utilise this provision. Significant unrestricted grant funding would also support local institutions in implementing creative public benefit programmes.

There is a need for structuralizing the federal structure of the nation, which can mitigate the challenges faced by the Local Government units due to overlapping jurisdiction and unclear demarcation of power and uneven distribution of resources. These changes would help in better coordination among various tiers of the government and make it more effective and responsive to the needs of local people.

CONCLUSION

The inherent structure of the Indian polity has traditionally favored a robust Union government, granting it a predominant role within the federal system. The constitutional division of powers, which gives the Union substantial legislative, executive, and monetary authority, reflects this tendency. The historical attempts by the Union government to sway regional politics have over time led to India’s federal structure becoming more centralised. Nonetheless, a discernible transition from a centralised to a decentralised governance paradigm has taken place in recent decades. This shift is defined by an appreciation of the value of local self-government and a dedication to inclusive, participatory development. The 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, which decentralise authority to the local level and empower Panchayats and Municipalities, are prime examples of this change. By addressing the unique requirements of local communities, this decentralisation seeks to promote a more inclusive and responsive governance model. Decentralisation is the shift away from a federal system that is centred on the central government and towards one that emphasises the transfer of power to local self-government.

In conclusion, India has gradually moved towards a more decentralised, participatory development model, even though the historical and constitutional framework has given the Union government an abundance of authority. This change is a reflection of an understanding of the vital role that local government and community projects play in determining the course of the country’s development. The continuous dedication to decentralisation represents a shift away from the historically centralised federal structure and towards one that recognises and uses local self-government’s potential to create a more responsive and inclusive system of government.

Author: IPSITA SINHA , in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

REFERENCES

[i] Decentralisation in India Challenges & Opportunities, Discussion Paper Series – 1,United Nations Development Programme, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/in/decentralisation_india_challenges_opportunities.pdf

[ii] Constitution, Art. 280(3)(bb).