Efforts for decentralised planning commenced during the First Five Year Plan ( ) – The need to break up the planning exercise into National, State, District and local community level was recognised Establishment of District Development Council and drawing up village plans with people’s participation was introduced in the Second Five Year Plan As per the recommendations of the Balawant Rai Committee, village, block and district level Panchayat Institutions were established in many States in – There was no meaningful role for these institutions in the planning process

The Administrative Reform Commission (1967) highlighted that district planning should focus on local needs and district authorities should be given clear indication of the resources that would be made available for planning In 1969, Planning Commission issued guidelines to the States for formulating district plans, annual, medium term and perspective plans Several states prepared their Fifth Five Year Plans, but district plans were integrated with state annual plans in Maharastra, Gujurat and Karnatak only From the Fourth FYP ( ) to the beginning of the Ninth FYP, a central scheme was implemented to assist States in strengthening their planning set-up. In , the scheme was extended to districts

On the basis of Prof. M.L. Dantewala Working Group’s (1978) recommendation, Planning Commission issued guidelines for preparation of Block plans. Ashok Meheta Committee (1978) on Panchayati Raj recommended for strengthening of Panchayats for local planning C.H.Hanumantha Rao Working Group (1984) recommended decentralisation of functions, funds and powers, and setting up of district planning bodies and district planning cells C.V.K.Rao Committee (1985) recommended that the District Panchayat should be the principal agency to manage all development programmes in the district

Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations emphasised on people’s representatives’ participation in planning and administrative process at the local level Involvement of Panchayats was institutionalised in JRY ( ) and Panchayats/Gram Sabhas were mandated to decide the projects/works During these four decades, decentralisation was not successful in spite of all these attempts

Provides constitutional status to local self-governments to plan for economic development and social justice Provides for decentralised planning from below District Planning Committees were to be constituted in every district as per Article 243ZD Each PRI level and Municipality ought to prepare Five Year perspective plans and Annual plans to be consolidated by DPC State must indicate the extent and type of resources available to Panchayats and Municipalities to facilitate planning Constitution of Standing Committees at PRI and Municipality level for planning and implementation

The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996, has made Gram Sabha the cornerstone of people’s empowerment Report of the Expert Group on “Planning at the grassroots level” headed by V. Ramachandran was accepted by the Ministry of PR and communicated to the States A Manual on Integrated District Planning was communicated by the Planning Commission in 2008 for decentralised district planning

Panhayat and Municipality Acts have been amended/ incorporated and Rules have been prepared in conformity with the 73 rd and 74 th CAA State Election Commission and State Finance Commission have been constituted The DPCs have been constituted by 2003 in all 30 districts Activity mapping of 21 subjects (out of 29 subjects enlisted in 11 th Schedule of CAA) was completed for PRIs in 2003 Preparation of Perspective and Annual plans were done from with the assistance of Technical Support Institutions (TSIs) during Eleventh FYP in a consultative manner District Planning and Monitoring Units (DPMU) were constituted in the year District plans are prepared by the DPMU from the year

Actual progress of decentralisation has been uneven across States. In the absence of adequate financial clout, functioning of the PRIs and ULBs have been severely constrained Real devolution of power in terms of funds, functions and functionaries are yet to be made to local self governments Limited availability of untied funds tend to make PRIs as agencies of State/Central government, rather than units of local government Integration of District plans with State plans within the timeframe is yet to be achieved The parastatals hardly work for local level planning The PRIs’ role in convergence of development schemes at the local level is limited Limited accountability of Palli/Gram/Area sabha Capacity building of PRIs in decentralised planning is inadequate Social audit has to improve