A constitution, statute, legislative bill, or resolution may be amended in terms of both government and law. Constitutional and statutory amendments are possible, and they are frequently made to bills as they move through a legislature. Amendments to a national constitution are typically subjected to an exact regulated procedure since they have the potential to substantially alter a nation's political structure or governing institutions. As of December 2021 there are 104 amendments.

On 24 April 1993, the Constitution (73rd Amendment) Act became effective. It was passed in 1992. The Act gave state governments the authority to take the required actions to formalize gram panchayats and enable them to function as self-governing entities.

Long before the act was implemented in 1992, village panchayats were already in place in India, but the system had a number of flaws that prevented it from serving as the people's government or responding to their demands. This was caused by a number of things, including a lack of funding, the absence of regular elections, and the under representation of the weaker groups, such as women and scheduled castes and tribes. According to Article 40 of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Indian Constitution, the government must make it easier for gram panchayats to get started and run efficiently.

The 73rd Amendment Act was introduced by the central government of India in 1992 to solve these problems and enhance local self-governments. The law was approved by both chambers and went into effect on April 24th, 1993. Part IX: The Panchayats is a new chapter that was added to the Constitution as a result of this Act.

Features

1. The Panchayati Raj institutions in the nation are now constitutional bodies according to this Act.
2. Every state is now required, in accordance with Article 243-B, to create panchayats within its borders.
3. The state governments are required by Article 243-G to give the panchayats power, responsibility, and authority.
4. The term of office for gram panchayats is set at 5 years.
5. Village panchayat elections can be held independently thanks to a system made available to state election authorities.
6. For the proper representation of women and SC/STs, see Article 243-D. 7. Every five years, the State Finance Commission should assess the panchayats' financial standing.

Critical Analysis
Local self-government in the nation has significantly improved as a result of the 73rd Amendment's passage. The central government chose to recognise April 24 as National Panchayati Raj Day every year in 2010 to commemorate this and further bolster the institutions. The Gram Panchayat (at the village level), the Mandal Parishad/Panchayat Samiti/Block Samiti (at the block level), and the Zila Parishad are the three levels at which the formalized Panchayati raj operates today (at the district level).

Depending on the benchmarks used for comparison, panchayati raj institutions (PRIs) are both a stunning success and a colossal disaster. There is no comparison to the PRIs if the aim was to provide yet another degree of local political and governmental representation. And if the intention was to improve governance, PRIs are ineffective and unlikely to do so in the near future.

PRIs are either a failure or, at best, a succession of missed opportunities on all other margins besides representation. India only had two levels of government up to 1993. Local governance bodies were introduced in India with the 73rd Amendment. However, the installation of local self-governing organizations was not mandated by this amendment. It only required the formation of local self-governing entities; it left it up to the state legislatures to decide what authority, responsibilities, and resources to give them. And therein lies PRIs' failure.

The supply of education, health care, sanitization, and water was not required to be transferred, which was the 73rd Amendment's first flaw. Instead, the amendment outlined the transferrable duties and left it up to the state legislature to decide which duties would be really devolved. In the past 25 years, there hasn't been a lot of

devolution of power and responsibilities. If PRIs aren't granted the power to carry out governance-related tasks, they can't govern. To make matters worse, state executive authorities have multiplied to carry out these functions because they were never devolved. The most prevalent example is the awful state water boards, which carry out duties that ought to have been left to elected local government officials, who have the finest understanding of local water issues and can be held accountable through the democratic process. 1

The absence of funding for PRIs is the 73rd Amendment's second failing. Local governments have two options for funding: either they can rely on intergovernmental transfers or local taxes to do so. Despite not requiring either, the 73rd Amendment recognised both types of public financing. Even for matters covered by PRIs, the state legislature must expressly approve the right to impose taxes. The 73rd Amendment gave state legislatures the option to decide whether to do this, albeit the majority of them haven't done so.

Intergovernmental transfers, when state governments give PRIs a portion of their earnings, are a second source of income. The constitutional amendment included provisions allowing State Finance Commissions to suggest how much money should flow to municipal and state governments. These are only suggestions, thus the state governments are not required to follow them. Despite the fact that financial commissions at all levels have pushed for more devolution of finances, governments have not taken many steps to do so.

As a result, PRIs frequently struggle to satisfy basic payroll responsibilities due to a severe lack of funding. They frequently struggle to address even the most fundamental local government needs and are hesitant to take on projects that call for any significant financial investment. The only long-term option is to promote true fiscal federalism, in which PRIs generate a significant percentage of their own income and are subject to strict spending restrictions, or fiscal autonomy combined with fiscal responsibility. 2

In order to promote better local administration, the millions of elected representatives who now give voice to Indians at the grassroots level need clear mandates of local functions as well as the opportunity to generate their own income. PRIs are only going to be an expensive failure without the necessary functions and resources.

Conclusion
Despite numerous attempts by the government, Panchayati Raj Institution was only founded 45 years after the country gained its freedom. This may be due to political will, financial constraints, and ignorance. The best institutions for villagers to resolve their problems and speak up in front of the government are called panchayats.

As a result, the panchayats are the ideal organization to handle problems that arise at the local level. Although the system still has numerous shortcomings, this Amendment was a significant move taken by the government to grant the panchayats constitutional status.

End-Notes:

1. Shruti Rajagopalan, Evaluating Panchayati Raj at 25, www.livemint.com
2. Supra at 1

End-Notes:

• Panchayati Raj System: Prior And After The 73rd Amendment
• Evolution of Local Self-government in India