Continuation of Q.15 on decentralization and local governance

IMPEDIMENTS forced by LOCAL governance: 1. FRAMEWORK has been created with TDF down approach without grassroot involvement. 2. FUNCHERs have not been devolved by respective STATE Acts in line with Schedule 11 & 12 or Land record maintained by STATE while taxation power rests with PRJ. 3. Functionary recruitment also rests with state leading to limited participation. Ex: PANCHAYAT development officers vacancy at high. As per 15TH FC & NK single committee, 46/7.3 all ULBs are dependent on grants with limited revenue generation. Ex: 20% tied grant. 5. Delay in state vacancy and fund releasing.

6. Role of SEC in timely elections. 7. Recommendations role of SEC in context of mounting STATE's Debt/GDP ratio. Thus, in this context, there is need for EFFECTIVE decentralisation: 1) As per SARKARIA Commission in line of PRINCIPLE of SUBSIDIARITY. Ex: local bodies in service delivery. 2) ARC II highlighted need for FUNCTIONAL decentralisation by states through legal framework, digitalization, strengthen open recruitment for panchayats. Ex: MYSURU declaration of PRIA. 3) FINANCIAL decentralisation or per 15th FC must be aimed via tied grants, competitive federalism. 4) Promotion of Municipal Bonds. Ex: 23 ULBs launch Surat Bonds have been taken as best case study. Hence, effective decentralisation can lead to SERVICE delivery effectiveness and efficiency as envisioned by Lakshadweep (Article 40).

— K N Chandana Jahnavi · AIR 50