Which of the following is not a recommendation of the Ashok Mehta Committee on Panchayati Raj ?

1. Constitutional Roots: Article 40 and Democratic Decentralization (basic)

To understand the Panchayati Raj system, we must first look at its 'DNA' within the Indian Constitution. The concept of Democratic Decentralization essentially means the devolution of power and resources from the central or state governments to local, grassroots-level institutions. This ensures that the people who are most affected by local issues have the power to solve them.

Before independence, the seeds of this idea were sown by Lord Ripon, who is known as the 'Father of Local Self-Government' in India. His 1882 resolution advocated for local bodies to serve as instruments of political and popular education, rather than just tools for tax collection Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528. This historical foundation influenced the makers of our Constitution to ensure that local governance remained a priority for the new Republic.

The most vital 'root' of this system is Article 40, located in Part IV of the Constitution under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Directive Principles of State Policy, p.108. Article 40 specifically directs the State to organize village panchayats and provide them with the necessary power and authority to function as units of self-government. This article is a tribute to the Gandhian philosophy of 'Gram Swaraj,' which envisioned every village as a self-sustaining republic.

However, it is important to remember that because Article 40 is a Directive Principle, it was initially non-justiciable. This meant that while the State was encouraged to create Panchayats, it was not legally required to do so in a uniform or timely manner Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Directive Principles of State Policy, p.117. This constitutional status explains why the Panchayati Raj system evolved slowly and varied significantly from state to state until the landmark 73rd Amendment years later.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Directive Principles of State Policy, p.108, 117; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Constitutional, Administrative and Judicial Developments, p.528

2. The Balwantrai Mehta Committee: Establishing the 3-Tier Foundation (basic)

After India gained independence, the government launched the Community Development Programme (1952) and the National Extension Service (1953) to transform rural life. However, these programs were failing to spark genuine enthusiasm among the masses. To investigate why and suggest improvements, the Government of India appointed a committee in January 1957, headed by Balwantrai G. Mehta. This committee’s work became the bedrock of local self-government in India Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383.

The committee’s landmark contribution was the concept of "Democratic Decentralization," which we now know as the Panchayati Raj System. The core idea was simple but revolutionary: local problems are best solved by local people who have a better understanding of their specific needs and how to manage resources efficiently NCERT Class X, Federalism, p.24. To achieve this, the committee recommended a three-tier structure that links the village to the district through an organic chain of administration Majid Husain, Geography of India, Regional Development and Planning, p.58.

Tier Level	Administrative Body	Election Method
Village Level	Gram Panchayat	Directly elected by the people
Block Level	Panchayat Samiti	Indirectly elected members
District Level	Zila Parishad	Indirectly elected members

A key feature of this recommendation was the balance between local representation and administrative guidance. The Panchayat Samiti (Block level) was intended to be the primary executive body, while the Zila Parishad (District level) was to be an advisory and supervisory body. Interestingly, the committee suggested that the District Collector should serve as the Chairman of the Zila Parishad to ensure coordination between the state government and local units Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.383; NCERT Class X, Political Science, Federalism, p.24; Majid Husain, Geography of India, Regional Development and Planning, p.58

3. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Provisions (intermediate)

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 was a watershed moment in Indian democracy, transforming Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) from discretionary bodies into constitutional entities. To balance the need for a uniform national framework with the principle of state autonomy, the Act divided its provisions into two distinct categories: Mandatory (Compulsory) and Voluntary (Discretionary). Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 39, p.388 Mandatory provisions are the "non-negotiables" that every state must implement to comply with the Constitution. These include the basic structure, such as the creation of a three-tier system (at the village, intermediate, and district levels), though states with a population under 20 lakh have the option to skip the intermediate level. Other mandatory features include the 5-year fixed tenure, the mandatory 1/3rd reservation for women, and the establishment of a State Election Commission and a State Finance Commission. Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Outstanding Features, p.35 In contrast, Voluntary provisions recognize that India is diverse. These allow state legislatures the "freedom of choice" regarding how much power to actually devolve to the local level. For instance, while the Act allows for the reservation of seats for Backward Classes (OBCs) or the devolution of the 29 functional items listed in the Eleventh Schedule, it doesn't force states to do so; these decisions are left to the state's discretion. Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 39, p.388

Feature	Mandatory Provision	Voluntary Provision
Reservations	SCs, STs (population basis) and Women (min 1/3rd).	Backward Classes (OBCs).
Structure	Establishment of Gram Sabha and 3-tier system.	Giving representation to MPs/MLAs in Panchayats.
Powers	Regular elections and 5-year term.	Devolution of 29 functions; Power to levy taxes.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Panchayati Raj, p.388; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Outstanding Features of our Constitution, p.35

4. Urban Governance: The 74th Amendment and District Planning (intermediate)

While the 73rd Amendment revolutionized rural India, the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (1992) did the same for our towns and cities. This act granted constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), ensuring they are no longer dependent on the whims of state governments for their existence. It added Part IX-A to the Constitution, titled 'The Municipalities', covering Articles 243-P to 243-ZG Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Municipalities, p.399.

A major pillar of this reform is the Twelfth Schedule, which lists 18 functional items that fall under the purview of municipalities. These aren't just administrative tasks; they include vital developmental roles such as urban planning, regulation of land use, and planning for economic and social development Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Municipalities, p.403. To make these bodies truly representative, the act mandates reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and not less than one-third of the total seats for women, ensuring inclusiveness in local self-government Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), After Nehru, p.744.

One of the most critical, yet often overlooked, aspects of this amendment is District Planning. Under Article 243-ZD, every state is required to constitute a District Planning Committee (DPC). Why is this important? Because a district consists of both rural (Panchayats) and urban (Municipalities) areas. The DPC acts as a bridge, consolidating the plans prepared by both these bodies to create a holistic Draft Development Plan for the district as a whole. This ensures that urban growth and rural needs are not planned in silos but are integrated for balanced regional development.

Feature	Description
Constitutional Part	Part IX-A (Articles 243-P to 243-ZG)
Functional Items	18 items listed in the 12th Schedule
Planning Link	District Planning Committee (Art. 243-ZD) consolidates rural and urban plans
Justice	Justiciable nature; states are legally bound to implement this system

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Municipalities, p.399; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Municipalities, p.403; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), After Nehru, p.744

5. Later Committees: G.V.K. Rao and L.M. Singhvi (intermediate)

By the mid-1980s, the Panchayati Raj system in India was struggling. While the earlier committees focused on the structure (tiers), these later committees realized that the problem was deeper: a lack of political will and an over-reliance on bureaucracy. These two committees, G.V.K. Rao and L.M. Singhvi, acted as the bridge between the old experimental phase and the eventual 73rd Constitutional Amendment.

1. G.V.K. Rao Committee (1985)

Appointed by the Planning Commission, this committee looked at the administrative side of rural development. Their diagnosis was blunt: the developmental process had become "bureaucratised" and separated from the people. They famously used the phrase "grass without roots" to describe the weakened state of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.385. To fix this, they recommended:

• Zila Parishad as the Pivot: The district-level body should be the most important unit for planning and development.
• Creation of District Development Commissioner (DDC): This official would act as the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad, ensuring that the District Collector’s role in development was reduced so elected bodies could lead Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.386.
• Regular Elections: They observed that many states hadn't held local elections for years, leading to the decay of these institutions.

2. L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986)

Just a year later, the Rajiv Gandhi government appointed the L.M. Singhvi Committee to create a concept paper on "Revitalisation." This committee provided the philosophical breakthrough needed for the modern system. Their most revolutionary recommendation was that Panchayati Raj institutions should be constitutionally recognized Indian Polity, Panchayati Raj, p.386. They argued that without a constitutional mandate, these bodies would always be at the mercy of state governments.

Feature	G.V.K. Rao (1985)	L.M. Singhvi (1986)
Core Philosophy	Anti-bureaucratization; "Grass without roots."	Constitutional identity; PRIs as units of self-government.
Key Recommendation	District Development Commissioner (DDC) post.	Constitutional status and a new Chapter in the Constitution.
Judicial Aspect	N/A	Establishment of Nyaya Panchayats for clusters of villages.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 39: Panchayati Raj, p.385-386

6. The Ashok Mehta Committee (1977): The Two-Tier Alternative (exam-level)

In 1977, the newly elected Janata Government sought to breathe new life into the Panchayati Raj system, which was perceived as a 'declining' and ineffective institution. They appointed the Ashok Mehta Committee, which submitted a landmark report in 1978 featuring 132 recommendations aimed at structural and functional revitalization Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 39, p.385. The committee’s philosophy was to move away from mere 'community development' toward a more robust system of decentralized planning.

The most radical shift proposed by the committee was the replacement of the traditional three-tier system with a two-tier structure. The committee argued that the village level was often too small for effective planning. Instead, they proposed the Zila Parishad at the district level and, below it, the Mandal Panchayat — a body representing a group of villages with a combined population of 15,000 to 20,000 Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 39, p.385. In this model, the district was envisioned as the primary point for decentralization under popular supervision.

The committee also introduced several progressive features to professionalize and protect these institutions:

• Political Participation: It recommended the official participation of political parties at all levels of panchayat elections, bringing local governance into the mainstream political process.
• Fiscal Autonomy: To ensure they weren't just 'begging' for funds, it recommended compulsory powers of taxation to mobilize their own resources Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 39, p.385.
• Social Justice: It proposed the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) based on their population.
• Social Audit: A suggestion was made for a social audit by a district-level agency to ensure funds were actually reaching the intended beneficiaries.

While the Janata Government fell before these recommendations could be implemented at the central level, states like Karnataka, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh took inspiration from this report to pass their own new legislation.

Feature	Balwantrai Mehta (1957)	Ashok Mehta (1977)
Structure	Three-tier (Village, Block, District)	Two-tier (Mandal, District)
Focus Unit	Panchayat Samiti (Block level)	Zila Parishad (District level)
Politics	Parties kept away (Idealistic)	Official party participation (Realistic)

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 39: Panchayati Raj, p.385

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the timeline of the Panchayati Raj evolution, you can see how the building blocks of committee recommendations fit together. The Ashok Mehta Committee (1977) was a pivotal shift from the earlier 1957 framework. While the Balwantrai Mehta Committee established the traditional grassroots approach, the Ashok Mehta report aimed to strengthen the system by making it more political and district-centric. To solve this question, you must recall the most distinct structural change proposed in 1978: the move away from the village level toward a two-tier system consisting of the Zila Parishad and the Mandal Panchayat. Therefore, the Creation of a three-tier system (B) is the correct answer because it was the original 1957 model, not Ashok Mehta's recommendation.

Walking through the reasoning, UPSC often tests your ability to distinguish between the 'Firsts' of each committee. A common trap is to assume all committees supported the same village-level focus. However, the Ashok Mehta Committee was unique in recommending the open participation of political parties and compulsory powers of taxation to ensure financial viability. By recognizing these as 'progressive' or 'political' steps for that era, you can logically conclude they belong to the 1977 report. Conversely, the reservation of seats for SCs and STs based on population was a key social recommendation of this committee, as noted in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, further solidifying that options (A), (C), and (D) were indeed part of its 132 recommendations.