This article give you insight about various commission and committee in Indian Polity and Governance . This article is based on Book Indian Polity by M laxmikant. The number of Committee and Commission may be more and very recent committees not added so kindly take note on that.
1. Macaulay Committee
Macaulay Committee (the Committee on the Indian Civil Service) was appointed in 1854.
2. Drafting Committee (IMP)
Among all the committees of the Constituent Assembly, the most important committee was the
Drafting Committee set up on August 29, 1947. It was this committee that was entrusted with the task
of preparing a draft of the new Constitution. It consisted of seven members. They were:
1. Dr B R Ambedkar (Chairman)
2. N Gopalaswamy Ayyangar
3. Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar
4. Dr K M Munshi
5. Syed Mohammad Saadullah
6. N Madhava Rau (He replaced B L Mitter who resigned due to ill-health)
7. T T Krishnamachari (He replaced D P Khaitan who died in 1948)
The Drafting Committee, after taking into consideration the proposals of the various committees,prepared the first draft of the Constitution of India, which was published in February 1948. Thepeople of India were given eight months to discuss the draft and propose amendments. In the light of the public comments, criticisms and suggestions, the Drafting Committee prepared a second draft, which was published in October 1948. The Drafting Committee took less than six months to prepare its draft. In all it sat only for 141 days.
3. Dhar Commission and JVP Committee
Accordingly, in June 1948, the Government of India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the chairmanship of S K Dhar to examine the feasibility of this. The commission submitted its report in December 1948 and recommended the reorganisation of states on the basis of administrative convenience rather than linguistic factor.
This created much resentment and led to the appointment of another Linguistic Provinces Committee by the Congress in December 1948 itself to examine the whole question afresh. It consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and hence, was popularly known as JVP Committee6. It submitted its report in April 1949 and formally rejected language as the basis for reorganisation of states.
This created much resentment and led to the appointment of another Linguistic Provinces Committee by the Congress in December 1948 itself to examine the whole question afresh. It consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and hence, was popularly known as JVP Committee6. It submitted its report in April 1949 and formally rejected language as the basis for reorganisation of states.
4.Ram Nandan Committee
Ram Nandan Committee was appointed to identify the creamy layer among the OBCs. It submitted its report in 1993, which was accepted.
5.SWARAN SINGH COMMITTEE
In 1976, the Congress Party set up the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee to make recommendations
about fundamental duties, the need and necessity of which was felt during the operation of the internal emergency (1975–1977). The committee recommended the inclusion of a separate chapter on
fundamental duties in the Constitution. It stressed that the citizens should become conscious that in
addition to the enjoyment of rights, they also have certain duties to perform as well.
The Congress Government at Centre accepted these recommendations and enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976. This amendment added a new part, namely, Part IVA to the Constitution.
The Congress Government at Centre accepted these recommendations and enacted the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act in 1976. This amendment added a new part, namely, Part IVA to the Constitution.
This new part consists of only one Article, that is, Article 51A which for the first time specified a
code of ten fundamental duties of the citizens. The ruling Congress party declared the non-inclusion of fundamental duties in the Constitution as a historical mistake and claimed that what the framers of the Constitution failed to do was being done now.
6. VERMA COMMITTEE
The Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties of the Citizens (1999) identified the existence of legal provisions for the implementation of some of the Fundamental Duties. They are mentioned below:
1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (1971) prevents disrespect to the Constitution of India, the National Flag and the National Anthem.
2. The various criminal laws in force provide for punishments for encouraging enmity between different sections of people on grounds of language, race, place of birth, religion and so on.
3. The Protection of Civil Rights Act4 (1955) provides for punishments for offences related to caste and religion.
4. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) declares the imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration as punishable offences.
5. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 provides for the declaration of a communal organisation as an unlawful association.
6. The Representation of People Act (1951) provides for the disqualification of members of the Parliament or a state legislature for indulging in corrupt practice, that is, soliciting votes on
the ground of religion or promoting enmity between different sections of people on grounds of
caste, race, language, religion and so on.
7. The Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 prohibits trade in rare and endangered species.
8. The Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 checks indiscriminate deforestation and diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.
7. Rajamannar Committee
In 1969, the Tamil Nadu Government (DMK) appointed a three-member committee under the
chairmanship of Dr P V Rajamannar to examine the entire question of Centre–state relations and to
suggest amendments to the Constitution so as to secure utmost autonomy to the states.25 The committee submitted its report to the Tamil Nadu Government in 1971.
The Committee identified the reasons for the prevailing unitary trends (tendencies of centralisation) in the country.
They include:
(i) certain provisions in the Constitution which confer special powers on the Centre;
(ii) one-party rule both at the Centre and in the states;
(iii) inadequacy of states’ fiscal resources and consequent dependence on the Centre for financial assistance; and
(iv) the institution of Central planning and the role of the Planning Commission.
The important recommendations of the committee are as follows:
(i) An Inter-State Council should be set up immediately;
(ii) Finance Commission should be made a permanent body;
(iii) Planning Commission should be disbanded and its place should be taken by a statutory body;
(iv) Articles 356, 357 and 365 (dealing with President’s Rule) should be totally omitted;
(v) The provision that the state ministry holds office during the pleasure of the governor should be omitted;
(vi) Certain subjects of the Union List and the Concurrent List should be transferred to the State List; (vii) the residuary powers should be allocated to the states; and
(viii) All-India services (IAS, IPS and IFS) should be abolished. The Central government completely ignored the recommendations of the Rajamannar Committee.
The Committee identified the reasons for the prevailing unitary trends (tendencies of centralisation) in the country.
They include:
(i) certain provisions in the Constitution which confer special powers on the Centre;
(ii) one-party rule both at the Centre and in the states;
(iii) inadequacy of states’ fiscal resources and consequent dependence on the Centre for financial assistance; and
(iv) the institution of Central planning and the role of the Planning Commission.
The important recommendations of the committee are as follows:
(i) An Inter-State Council should be set up immediately;
(ii) Finance Commission should be made a permanent body;
(iii) Planning Commission should be disbanded and its place should be taken by a statutory body;
(iv) Articles 356, 357 and 365 (dealing with President’s Rule) should be totally omitted;
(v) The provision that the state ministry holds office during the pleasure of the governor should be omitted;
(vi) Certain subjects of the Union List and the Concurrent List should be transferred to the State List; (vii) the residuary powers should be allocated to the states; and
(viii) All-India services (IAS, IPS and IFS) should be abolished. The Central government completely ignored the recommendations of the Rajamannar Committee.
8.Anandpur Sahib Resolution
In 1973, the Akali Dal adopted a resolution containing both political and religious demands in a
meeting held at Anandpur Sahib in Punjab. The resolution, generally known as Anandpur Sahib
Resolution, demanded that the Centre’s jurisdiction should be restricted only to defence, foreign
affairs, communications, and currency and the entire residuary powers should be vested in the states.
It stated that the Constitution should be made federal in the real sense and should ensure equal
authority and representation to all the states at the Centre.
9. West Bengal Memorandum
In 1977, the West Bengal Government (led by the Communists) published a memorandum on Centre– state relations and sent to the Central government. The memorandum inter alia suggested the
following:
(i) The word ‘union’ in the Constitution should be replaced by the word ‘federal’;
(ii) The jurisdiction of the Centre should be confined to defense, foreign affairs, currency, communications and economic co-ordination;
(i) The word ‘union’ in the Constitution should be replaced by the word ‘federal’;
(ii) The jurisdiction of the Centre should be confined to defense, foreign affairs, currency, communications and economic co-ordination;
(iii) All other subjects including the residuary should be vested in the states;
(iv) Articles 356 and 357 (President’s Rule) and 360 (financial emergency) should be repealed;
(v) State’s consent should be made obligatory for formation of new states or reorganization of existing states;
(vi) Of the total revenue raised by the Centre from all sources, 75 per cent should be allocated to the states;
(vi) Of the total revenue raised by the Centre from all sources, 75 per cent should be allocated to the states;
(vii) Rajya Sabha should have equal powers with that of the Lok Sabha; and
(viii) There should be only Central and state services and the all-India services should be abolished.
The Central government did not accept the demands made in the memorandum.
In 1983, the Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre–state relations
under the chairmanship of R S Sarkaria, a retired judge of the Supreme Court.26 The commission was asked to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Centre and states in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures.
It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later officially released in January 1988. The Commission did not favour structural changes and regarded the existing constitutional arrangements and principles relating to the institutions basically sound. But, it emphasised on the need for changes in the functional or operational aspects.
It was initially given one year to complete its work, but its term was extended four times. The final report was submitted in October 1987, and the summary was later officially released in January 1988. The Commission did not favour structural changes and regarded the existing constitutional arrangements and principles relating to the institutions basically sound. But, it emphasised on the need for changes in the functional or operational aspects.
It observed that federalism is more a functional arrangement for co- operative action than a static institutional concept. It outrightly rejected the demand for curtailing the powers of the Centre and stated that a strong Centre is essential to safeguard the national unity and integrity which is being threatened by the fissiparious tendencies in the body politic. However, it did not equate strong Centre with centralisation of powers. It observed that overcentralisation leads to blood pressure at the centre and anemia at the pheriphery.
The Second commission on Centre-State Relations was set-up by the Government of India in April
2007 under the Chairmanship of Madan Mohan Punchhi, former Chief Justice of India.28
It wasrequired to look into the issues of Centre-State relations keeping in view the sea-changes that havetaken place in the polity and economy of India since the Sarkaria Commission had last looked at the issue of Centre-State relations over two decades ago.
It wasrequired to look into the issues of Centre-State relations keeping in view the sea-changes that havetaken place in the polity and economy of India since the Sarkaria Commission had last looked at the issue of Centre-State relations over two decades ago.
12. Balwant Rai Mehta Committee
In January 1957, the Government of India appointed a committee to examine the working of the
Community Development Programme (1952) and the National Extension Service (1953) and to
suggest measures for their better working. The chairman of this committee was Balwant Rai G Mehta.
The committee submitted its report in November 1957 and recommended the establishment of the
scheme of ‘democratic decentralisation’, which ultimately came to be known as Panchayati Raj.
13.Ashok Mehta Committee
In December 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee on panchayati raj institutions under the chairmanship of Ashok Mehta. It submitted its report in August 1978 and made 132
recommendations to revive and strengthen the declining panchayati raj system in the country.
14.G V K Rao Committee
The Committee on Administrative Arrangement for Rural Development and Poverty Alleviation
Programmes under the chairmanship of G.V.K. Rao was appointed by the Planning Commission in
1985. The Committee came to conclusion that the developmental process was gradually bureaucratized and divorced from the Panchayati Raj. This phenomena of bureaucratization of development administration as against the democratization weakened the Panchayati Raj institutions
resulting in what is aptly called as ‘grass without roots’.
15.L M Singhvi Committee
In 1986, Rajiv Gandhi government appointed a committee on ‘Revitalisation of Panchayati Raj
Institutions for Democracy and Development’ under the chairmanship of L M Singhvi.
16. Hanumantha Rao Committee
on district level planning, appointed by Planning Commission in September 1982, submits its report in May
17. Santhanam Committee
the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the main agency for preventing corruption in the
Central government. It was established in 1964 by an executive resolution of the Central
government. Its establishment was recommended by the Santhanam Committee on Prevention
of Corruption1 (1962–64).
18. COMMITTEES RELATED TO ELECTORAL REFORMS
the various committees and commissions which have examined our electoral system, electionmachinery as well as election process and suggested reforms are mentioned here.
18. Tarkunde Committee was appointed in 1974 by Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) during his “Total Revolution” movement. This unofficial committee submitted its report in 1975.
19. Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990)
20. Vohra Committee on the Nexus between Crime and Politics (1993)
21. Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections (1998)
22. Law Commission of India Report on Reform of the Electoral Laws (1999)
23. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000-2002) 3. It was headed
by M.N. Venkatachaliah.
24. Election Commission of India Report on Proposed Electoral Reforms (2004).
25. Second Administrative Reforms Commission of India Report on Ethics in Governance (2007). It was headed by Veerappa Moily.
26. Tankha Committee was appointed in 2010 to look into the whole gamut of the election laws
and electoral reforms.
Based on the recommendations made by the above Committees and Commissions, various reforms have been introduced in our electoral system, election machinery and election process. These can bestudied under the following four heads.
• Electoral reforms before 1996
• Electoral reforms of 1996
• Electoral reforms after 1996
0 comments:
Post a Comment