Progression of Constitutional Structure

Arora IAS Class Notes


British East India Company Rule (1765-1858)


  • After the Battle of Buxar (1764), the East India Company gained revenue collection rights (Diwani) in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.
  • A dual system of governance existed initially:
    • Company held authority but lacked responsibility.
    • Indian representatives had responsibility but no authority.
  • This period saw rampant corruption and exploitation by Company servants.


The Regulating Act of 1773

  • Marked the British government’s first intervention in Indian affairs.
  • Aimed to control and regulate the East India Company’s functioning.
  • Key features:
    • Increased British government control over Indian affairs.
    • Recognized the Company’s administrative and political role beyond trade.
    • Introduced centralized administration:
      • Company directors required to submit reports to the British government.
      • Governor-General and a four-member council established in Bengal (majority rule).
      • Supreme Court of Judicature created in Bengal with original and appellate jurisdiction.
      • Limited control of the Governor-General over Bombay and Madras.
    • Checks and balances intended.

Amendments of 1781

  • Defined Supreme Court jurisdiction:
    • Applied personal law of the defendant within Calcutta.
    • Protected government servants acting in their official capacity.
    • Respected social and religious customs.


Pitt’s India Act of 1784

  • Increased British government control over the East India Company.
  • Company became a subordinate department of the British state.
  • Company territories in India termed “British possessions.”
  • Established a Board of Control:
    • Chancellor of the Exchequer
    • Secretary of State
    • Four members of the Privy Council (appointed by the Crown)
  • Board controlled Company’s civil, military, and revenue affairs.
  • Dispatches required Board approval (dual control system).
  • Governor-General’s council reduced to three members (including commander-in-chief).
  • Bombay and Madras presidencies subordinated to Governor-General.
  • Aimed to prevent aggressive wars and treaties (often violated).


The Act of 1786

  • Granted Cornwallis combined powers of Governor-General and commander-in-chief.
  • Allowed him to overrule council decisions if he accepted responsibility.
  • This provision later extended to all governors-general.


The Charter Act of 1793

  • Renewed Company’s commercial privileges for 20 years.
  • Required Company to pay £5 lakh annually to the British government after Indian expenses.
  • Mandated royal approval for appointing governor-general, governors, and commander-in-chief.
  • Restricted senior officials’ travel without permission (considered resignation).
  • Empowered Company to grant trade licenses (“privilege” or “country trade”).
    • Enabled opium shipments to China.
  • Separated revenue administration from judiciary (dissolved Maal Adalats courts).
  • Established British government member salaries paid from Indian revenues (until 1919).


The Charter Act of 1813

  • Ended Company’s trade monopoly in India due to:
    • Laissez-faire economic ideas.
    • Napoleon’s continental system closing European ports to Britain.
  • Retained Company’s monopoly on China trade and tea trade.
  • Guaranteed Company shareholders a 10.5% dividend on Indian revenue.
  • Company retained territorial possessions and revenue for 20 years.
  • Explicitly defined the constitutional position of British territories in India for the first time (Crown sovereignty).
  • Further expanded Board of Control’s powers.
  • Allocated ₹1 lakh annually for reviving and promoting “literature, learning, and science among the natives of India” (government responsibility for education).
  • Required regulations from Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta councils to be submitted to British Parliament.
  • Mandated separate accounts for commercial transactions and territorial revenues.
  • Significantly expanded Board of Control’s power of superintendence and direction.
  • Permitted Christian missionaries to enter India and preach.


The Charter Act of 1833

  • Extended the Company’s rule for another 20 years.
  • Established governance in the name of the British Crown.
  • Ended Company monopolies on China trade and tea.
  • Lifted restrictions on European immigration and property ownership (facilitated European colonization).
  • Centralized governance in India:
    • Governor-General controlled all civil and military affairs.
    • Bengal, Madras, and Bombay presidencies under Governor-General’s control.
    • Centralized control over revenue and expenditure.
    • Madras and Bombay presidencies lost legislative powers (limited to proposing laws).
  • Added a law member to the Governor-General’s council.
  • Initiated codification and consolidation of Indian laws.
  • Prohibited discrimination in employment based on religion, race, or birth (limited practical effect but became a foundation for future political movements).
  • Urged measures to improve slave conditions and ultimately abolish slavery (abolished in 1843).


The Charter Act of 1853

  • Company retained control of territories unless Parliament intervened.
  • Reduced Court of Directors to 18 members.
  • Ended Company’s patronage system for civil services (replaced with competitive examinations).
  • Elevated the law member to a full member of the Governor-General’s executive council.
  • Further separated executive and legislative functions:
    • Six additional members added for legislative purposes (Indian Legislative Council).
    • Local representation introduced in the legislature.
  • Laws still required Governor-General’s assent, and he could veto legislative council bills.


The Act for Better Government of India 1858

Response to 1857 Revolt

  • Exposed limitations of East India Company’s administration.
  • Aimed to increase accountability.

Key Changes

  • Governance transferred to the British Crown.
  • Secretary of State with a 15-member council to govern India.
    • Secretary of State held final decision-making power (council advisory).
  • Ended the dual control system introduced by Pitt’s India Act (1784).
  • Elevated Governor-General to Viceroy (increased prestige).
  • Formalized Crown rule, replacing the East India Company.


Developments after 1858 till Independence

Indian Councils Act 1861

  • Introduced representation of non-officials in legislative bodies.
  • Established legislative processes for creation and modification of laws.
  • Laid foundation for cabinet government with departmental heads.
  • Established legislative devolution with provincial legislative councils.

Weaknesses of 1861 Act

  • Limited powers of councils:
    • Could not discuss important matters or finances without government approval.
    • No control over budget.
    • No ability to discuss executive actions.
    • Viceroy and Secretary of State could veto legislation.
  • Limited membership:
    • Only elite sections of Indian society included.


Indian Councils Act 1892

  • Response to Indian National Congress demands for reform.
  • Increased number of non-official members in central and provincial councils.
  • Introduced indirect election through recommendations from universities, local bodies, and business groups.
  • Allowed members to discuss financial statements and ask limited questions within guidelines.


Indian Councils Act 1909 (Morley-Minto Reforms)

  • First attempt at introducing representative and popular elements in governance.
  • Increased size of Imperial Legislative Council.
  • Appointed the first Indian member (Satyendra Prasad Sinha) to the Governor-General’s Executive Council.
  • Increased powers of central and provincial legislative councils (but real power remained with the government).
  • Introduced separate electorates for Muslims, creating new problems:
    • Overrepresentation of Muslims.
    • Lower voting qualification for Muslims compared to Hindus.
    • Indirect election system.


Government of India Act 1919 (Montague-Chelmsford Reforms)

  • Gradual introduction of responsible government within the British Empire.
  • Established a bicameral legislature at the center:
    • Council of State (Upper House)
    • Legislative Assembly (Lower House)
  • Introduced direct elections (with limited franchise based on property, tax, or education).
  • Extended communal representation with separate electorates for various groups.
  • Implemented dyarchy in provinces:
    • Divided administration into subjects controlled by ministers responsible to the legislature (transferred subjects) and subjects controlled by the executive council (reserved subjects).
  • Separated provincial and central budgets, giving provincial legislatures budgetary power.
  • Appointed a High Commissioner for India in London to manage Indian trade in Europe.
  • Ended the practice of paying the Secretary of State for India from Indian revenue.

Limitations of 1919 Act

  • Limited responsible government:
    • Legislature could not replace the government.
    • Legislative and financial powers remained limited and subject to the Governor-General’s veto.
  • Unitary and centralized structure despite devolution of some power to provinces.
  • Dyarchy in provinces proved unsuccessful.
  • Non-sovereign legislature with limited power compared to the executive.

Government of India Act 1935


  • Established by British Parliament following recommendations of Simon Commission (1927).
  • Aimed to address shortcomings of Government of India Act 1919.

Key Features

  • Federal Structure (not fully implemented):
    • Envisioned All-India Federation with provinces and princely states.
    • Each princely state would sign an “instrument of accession” defining its participation.
  • Federal Legislature (bicameral):
    • Council of States (Upper House) – permanent body.
    • Federal Legislative Assembly (Lower House).
    • Provision for joint sitting in case of deadlock between houses.
  • Division of Powers:
    • Three legislative lists:
      • Federal Legislative List
      • Provincial Legislative List
      • Concurrent Legislative List
    • Residuary legislative powers under Governor-General’s discretion.
    • Governor-General could veto bills passed by the legislature.
    • King-in-Council could disallow acts even after assent by Governor-General.
  • Provincial Autonomy:
    • Abolished dyarchy system.
    • Full responsible government in provinces (subject to safeguards).
    • Provinces derived power directly from the British Crown.
    • Independent financial powers for provinces.
    • Expanded provincial legislatures:
      • Bicameral in six provinces (Madras, Bombay, Bengal, United Provinces, Bihar, Assam).
      • Unicameral in other five provinces.
    • Communal Representation:
      • Extended communal electorates and weightage to depressed classes, women, and labor.
    • Enlarged Franchise:
      • About 10% of population received voting rights.
    • Federal Court:
      • Established in 1937.
      • Original and appellate jurisdiction to interpret 1935 Act and settle interstate disputes.
      • Limited power due to dominance of Privy Council in London.
    • India Council Abolished:
      • Ended the India Council of the Secretary of State.


  • All-India Federation never materialized due to opposition from Indian parties.
  • Rigid constitution with no provision for internal development.
  • Amendment right reserved for British Parliament.
  • Communal electorates and interest-based representation promoted separatism (contributed to partition).
  • Rejected by Congress, who demanded a Constituent Assembly for an independent India.


  • Provincial autonomy implemented on April 1, 1937.
  • Central government continued under 1919 Act with minor amendments.
  • 1935 Act remained in effect until August 15, 1947.


Evolution of Civil Services in India

From Commerce to Administration

  • East India Company’s civil service initially focused on commercial activities.
  • Gradually, civil servants took on administrative responsibilities for acquired territories.

Cornwallis’ Reforms (1786-1793)

  • Established and organized the civil service.
  • Aimed to reduce corruption through:
    • Increased salaries for civil servants.
    • Strict rules against private trade.
    • Ban on accepting gifts and bribes.
    • Promotions based on seniority.

Wellesley’s Initiatives (1798-1805)

  • Founded Fort William College in 1800 for training new recruits (discontinued in 1806).
  • Established East India College at Haileybury, England in 1806 for a two-year training program.

Exclusion of Indians

  • Belief that only the British could administer India for British interests.
  • Perception of Indians as incapable, untrustworthy, and insensitive to British interests.
  • High competition among Europeans for lucrative positions.
  • Charter Act of 1793 reserved high-paying positions for the Company’s covenanted servants.
  • Charter Act of 1833 theoretically opened services to Indians, but not implemented.

Limited Entry for Indians

  • Proclamation of 1858 promised to include Indians in civil service positions.
  • Indian Civil Service Act of 1861:
    • Reserved some positions for covenanted civil servants.
    • Examinations held in England, requiring English language and classical learning (Greek & Latin).
    • Age limit progressively reduced, making it difficult for Indians to compete.
  • Satyendra Nath Tagore became the first Indian to qualify for the Indian Civil Service in 1863.


Evolution of Civil Services in India: Statutory Civil Service and Beyond

Statutory Civil Service (1878-1879)

  • Introduced by Lord Lytton.
  • Aimed to give Indians limited access to higher positions.
  • One-sixth of covenanted posts filled by Indians from high families through nominations.
  • Approval process by Secretary of State and Viceroy made it difficult for Indians.
  • The system failed and was abolished.

Congress Demands and Aitchison Committee (1885-1886)

  • Indian National Congress demanded:
    • Lower age limit for recruitment.
    • Simultaneous examinations in India and Britain.
  • Aitchison Committee recommendations (under Lord Dufferin):
    • Abolish terms “covenanted” and “uncovenanted.”
    • Classify services into Imperial, Provincial, and Subordinate levels.
    • Raise age limit to 23.
  • House of Commons resolution (1893) supported simultaneous exams in India, but not implemented.
  • Secretary of State Lord Kimberley resisted Indian participation, citing a need for “adequate number of Europeans.”

Montford Reforms 1919

  • Recognized the need for Indian involvement in administration for responsible government.
  • Recommended:
    • Simultaneous examinations in India and England.
    • One-third of recruitment in India, increasing annually by 1.5%.

Lee Commission (1924)

  • Secretary of State to continue recruiting for elite services (ICS, Engineering, Forest).
  • Provincial governments to handle recruitment for “transferred fields” like education and health.
  • Direct ICS recruitment:
    • 50:50 parity between Europeans and Indians within 15 years.
  • Recommended immediate establishment of a Public Service Commission.

Government of India Act 1935

  • Established a Federal Public Service Commission and Provincial Public Service Commissions.
  • Control and authority remained in British hands.
  • “Indianisation” of services did not translate to real political power for Indians, who still acted as agents of colonial rule.


Exclusion of Indians from Civil Services under British Rule

  • Limited Entry:
    • Exams held in London, English only.
    • Classical Greek & Latin required.
    • Age limit reduced from 23 (1859) to 19 (1878) under Lytton.
  • European Domination:
    • Key positions held by Europeans.
    • Higher salaries for Europeans.
  • Slow Indianization:
    • Increased Indian recruitment after 1918, but limited impact.
    • Senior positions remained European.
  • Limited Power for Indians:
    • Indian civil servants served British interests.
    • Indianization did not translate to real power.


Evolution of Police System in Modern India

Pre-Colonial Era

  • No formal police system under Mughals and other native states.
  • Watch guards protected villages.
  • Mughals used:
    • Faujdars (law & order)
    • Amils (revenue collectors with policing duties)
    • Kotwals (urban law & order)

Early British Rule (1765-1814)

  • Dual rule in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa (1765-1772):
    • Zamindars responsible for law & order with thanedars.
    • System often neglected, with zamindars colluding with criminals.
  • 1770: Faujdar and amil positions abolished.
  • 1774: Warren Hastings restored faujdars and tasked zamindars with assisting them.
  • 1775: Faujdar thanas established in major towns.

Cornwallis (1786-1793)

  • 1791: Established a regular police force based on “thana” system.
    • Daroga (Indian officer) led each thana.
    • Superintendent of Police (SP) headed the district force.
    • Zamindars relieved of police duties.

Mayo (1808)

  • Appointed an SP for each division, assisted by spies (“goyendas”) who often harassed locals.


  • Court of Directors abolished darogas and subordinates (except in Bengal).

Bentinck (1828-1835)

  • Abolished SP position.
  • Collector/magistrate became head of district police force.
  • Commissioner acted as SP for each division.
  • This system resulted in a poorly organized and overburdened police force.
  • Presidency towns were the first to separate collector/magistrate duties.

Police Commission (1860) and Indian Police Act (1861)

  • Recommended a civil constabulary system:
    • Village watchmen maintained.
    • Integrated with broader police structure.
  • Established a hierarchical structure:
    • Inspector-General (province)
    • Deputy Inspector-General (range)
    • Superintendent of Police (district)
  • Police achieved success in curbing dacoity, thugee (strangulation gangs), etc.
    • However, public perception of police remained negative due to:
      • Unsympathetic attitude.
      • Role in suppressing national movement.
    • Act provided a framework for police setup across provinces.
    • Standardized police ranks nationwide.

Police Commission (1902-1903) under Curzon

  • Recommended reforms:
    • Direct recruitment for senior police officials.
    • Training schools for constables and officers.
    • Increased police force strength.
    • Permission for police to visit villages for investigations.
    • Salary raises.
    • Creation of a Central Criminal Intelligence Department (DCI).
  • Following recommendations:
  • DCI established (later became central intelligence agency).
  • Criminal Investigation Departments (CIDs) set up in provinces (later divided into Special Branch, CID, and Crime Branch).
  • Police developed as a tool for maintaining British rule.
  • Repressive tactics towards the nationalist movement further alienated the public.


The British Indian Army: Structure and Control

Pre-1857: Two Armies

  • Queen’s Army: British troops serving in India.
  • Company’s Army:
    • European regiments.
    • Indian sepoys with British officers.

Post-1857 Reorganisation

  • Driven by:
    • Preventing another Sepoy Mutiny (1857).
    • Defending India from rival empires.
    • Expanding British influence in Asia and Africa.

European Domination

  • Increased European troop presence (one-third of total force).
  • Strict European control over:
    • Key military departments (artillery, tanks).
    • Advanced weaponry (until 1900).
  • No Indian officers until 1914 (limited commissioned ranks after 1918).
  • Slow Indianization: 50% officer cadre by 1952 (planned).

Divide-and-Rule Tactics

  • “Balance and Counterpoise” strategy:
    • Pitting Indian soldiers from different regions against each other.
  • “Martial Races” Theory:
    • Favored recruitment from specific communities (Sikhs, Gurkhas, Pathans).
    • Disfavored recruitment from areas involved in the Sepoy Mutiny.
  • Communal and caste-based companies:
    • Discouraged nationalistic sentiment among soldiers.

Isolation from Indian Society

  • Restricted access to newspapers and nationalist publications.

Overall Significance

  • The British Indian Army:
    • Expensive to maintain.
    • Served British imperial interests.


Development of Judiciary in British India

Pre-British Era

  • No formal court system.
  • Disputes settled by:
    • Caste elders/village panchayats/zamindars (Hindus).
    • Qazis (Muslim religious officials) in provincial capitals, towns, and large villages.
  • Rulers as the arbitrary fountainhead of justice.

Early British Reforms (1726-1793)

  • 1726:East India Company establishes Mayor’s Courts in Madras, Bombay, Calcutta – foundation of common law system.
  • Reforms under Warren Hastings (1772-1785):
    • District Diwani Adalats (civil courts) for Hindus and Muslims (separate legal codes).
    • District Fauzdari Adalats (criminal courts) under Muslim law.
    • Sadar Diwani Adalat (appellate court) for civil disputes.
    • Sadar Nizamat Adalat (appellate court) for criminal disputes.
    • Supreme Court in Calcutta (original & appellate jurisdiction for British subjects).

Cornwallis Reforms (1786-1793): Separation of Powers

  • Abolition of District Fauzdari Adalats:Replaced by circuit courts with European judges for civil & criminal appeals.
  • Sadar Nizamat Adalat relocated to Calcutta under Governor-General & Council.
  • District Diwani Adalat renamed District/City/Zila Court under a district judge.
  • Collector responsible only for revenue (no magisterial functions).
  • Graduated court system established for both Hindu & Muslim law:
    • Munsiff’s Court (Indian officers).
    • Registrar’s Court (European judge).
    • District Court.
    • Four Circuit Courts (provincial appeals).
    • Sadar Diwani Adalat (Calcutta).
    • King-in-Council (appeals over 5,000 pounds).
  • Cornwallis Code:
    • Separation of revenue & judicial administration.
    • Europeans under court jurisdiction.
    • Government officials answerable to courts.
    • Established principle of rule of law.

William Bentinck Reforms (1828-1833)

  • Abolition of Circuit Courts (functions transferred to collectors).
  • Sadar Diwani & Nizamat Adalats established in Allahabad for Upper Provinces.
  • Introduction of option for vernacular languages in courts (previously Persian only).
  • 1833:Law Commission established under Macaulay for legal code creation.
    • Led to:
      • Civil Procedure Code (1859).
      • Indian Penal Code (1860).
      • Criminal Procedure Code (1861).

Later Developments

  • 1860:Europeans lose most special privileges in criminal cases (except trial by European judges).
  • 1865:Merger of Supreme Court & Sadar Adalats into High Courts (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras).
  • 1935:Government of India Act establishes a Federal Court (1937) for disputes between governments and limited appeals from High Courts.


Positive Aspects

  • Rule of law established.
  • Codified laws replaced religious/personal laws.
  • Europeans under some legal jurisdiction.
  • Government servants accountable to courts.

Negative Aspects

  • Complex and expensive system.
  • Advantages for the wealthy.
  • Opportunities for false evidence and delays.
  • Overburdened courts.
  • Unfamiliarity of European judges with Indian customs.


Changes in British Administration After 1857

Reasons for Change

  • Sepoy Mutiny (1857) exposed vulnerabilities in British rule.
  • Need to appease Indians and gather intelligence.
  • New stage of colonialism:
    • Industrial revolution intensified competition for resources.
    • Britain faced challenges to its global dominance.
    • Increased British economic investment in India.
  • Desire to consolidate British power and expand influence.

Overall Goal: Secure British economic and political interests in India.

Central Government (After 1858)

  • Act for Better Government of India (1858):
    • Power transferred from East India Company to British Crown.
    • Secretary of State (member of British cabinet) became head.
    • Viceroy (Governor General) with an executive council assisted the Secretary of State.
    • Ended the dual system introduced by Pitt’s India Act (1784).
    • Increased influence of British businesses on Indian policy.
  • Indian Councils Act (1861):
    • Viceroy’s Executive Council expanded to include a jurist member.
    • Legislative Council established (advisory only).
      • Limited membership (elite Indians and British).
      • No power to discuss budgets or critical matters.
      • Viceroy and Secretary of State held veto power over legislation.
    • Viceroy could issue ordinances in emergencies.

Provincial Government

  • Indian Councils Act (1861):
    • Legislative powers returned to Madras and Bombay presidencies.
    • Other provinces established legislative councils later.
  • Presidency vs. Other Provinces:
    • Presidencies (Bombay, Madras, Calcutta) had more power.
    • Governed by a Governor and Executive Council (appointed by Crown).
    • Other provinces: Lieutenant Governors/Chief Commissioners (appointed by Viceroy).
  • Financial Decentralization (Limited):
    • 1870s: Steps towards financial division between central and provincial governments.
      • Lord Mayo: Fixed sums from central revenues allocated to provinces for specific services (education, police, etc.).
      • Lord Lytton: Transferred additional expenditure heads (land revenue, excise) to provinces.
      • Provinces received a share of income tax, stamps, and excise collected within their borders.
    • 1882: Revenue sources categorized:
      • Central (entirely to center).
      • Provincial (entirely to provinces).
      • Shared between center and provinces.
    • Central government maintained control over provinces (both ultimately reported to Secretary of State).

Local Bodies in British India

Reasons for Establishment

  • Financial strain on central government due to over-centralization.
  • Need for modern amenities to match growing economic ties with Europe.
  • Rising nationalism demanded improvement in basic facilities.
  • Countering criticism by using local taxes for local welfare.
  • Providing an outlet for Indian participation without threatening British control.

Evolution of Local Government

  • 1864-1868: First local bodies formed, mostly nominated members led by district magistrates (seen as additional tax collection tools).
  • Mayo’s Resolution (1870):
    • Decentralized finances: Provincial governments received annual grants and could levy local taxes to balance budgets.
    • Local funds allocated for education, sanitation, medical services, and roads.
    • Emphasized local interest and supervision for managing these funds.
  • Ripon’s Resolution (1882):
    • Advocated local bodies for improved administration, political education, and self-governance.
    • Urban and rural local bodies established with specific duties and revenue sources.
    • Non-official majority with elected members (if feasible).
    • Non-official chairpersons.
    • Reduced official interference (limited to review and checks).
    • Official sanction required for specific actions (loans, property sales, new taxes, etc.).

Drawbacks of Ripon’s Reforms

  • Limited elected representation in most local bodies.
  • Restricted franchise.
  • District officials continued to head district boards.
  • Strict government control with power to suspend or supersede local bodies.
  • Bureaucratic resistance to self-government for Indians.
  • Lord Curzon (later Viceroy) increased official control over local bodies.

Royal Commission on Decentralization (1908):

  • Identified lack of financial resources as a major hurdle.
  • Recommendations:
    • Empower village panchayats with judicial functions in petty cases, managing minor village works, schools, etc.
    • Establish sub-district boards with separate duties and revenue sources.
    • Reduce restrictions on taxation and government grants (except for large projects).
    • Municipalities could manage primary education (optional for middle schools) and be relieved of other responsibilities.

Government of India Resolution (1915):

  • Mostly ignored the Decentralization Commission’s recommendations.

Resolution of May 1918:

  • Aimed to make local bodies more representative with real authority.

Under Dyarchy (1919):

  • Local self-government became a transferred subject under Indian ministers.
  • Limited progress due to finance remaining a reserved subject (controlled by British).

Simon Commission (1930):

  • Noted slow progress of village panchayats except in a few provinces.
  • Advocated increased provincial control for efficiency (considered a backward step).
  • Criticized reluctance to impose local taxes and decline in financial management since 1919 reforms.

Government of India Act (1935) and After

  • Provincial autonomy provided more impetus to local self-government.
  • Popular ministries controlled finance, enabling allocation of funds to local bodies.
  • Demarcation between provincial and local finance was removed.
  • New provincial acts granted more authority to local bodies.
  • Financial resources and taxation powers remained limited.
  • New restrictions placed on local taxation after 1935.


  • Indian Constitution (Article 40) mandates village panchayats as effective local governance bodies.
  • 73rd and 74th amendments aim to strengthen the structure of local self-governing institutions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *