Panchayat polls 8212; CMs oppose diluted Bill

8220;To make direct elections to two of the three tiers of the panchayats optional will amount to virtually negating the democratic nature of the panchyati raj system in the country,8221; Krishna says in the letter, copies of which were made available to the press here by the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra RLEK.

He says any move to give a go by to the principle of direct elections to the panchayats will strike at the very root of the legitimacy of these institutions.

The fundamental features of the 73rd Amendment include holding of regular and direct elections to the three tiers of panchayats, and devolution of powers, functions and finance to make panchayats effective.

8220;Panchayats without direct election of their members will become weak supplicants depending on largesses from the State and Central Governments instead of developing as vigorous institutions of self-government,8221; Krishna writes.

The 87th Amendment Bill was presented in Parliament during the budget session.

According to the Karnataka Chief Minister, even Article 243 C3 of the Constitution provides adequate scope for chairpersons of the lower level of panchayats to be made ex-officio members of the next higher level of panchayats with full voting rights.

8220;It will be an anomaly to make a directly elected chairperson responsible to an indirectly elected council, specially a council which consists only of ex-officio members,8221; says Krishna.

Krishna has urged Patwa to 8220;drop the proposal to have the 87th constitutional amendment bill passed in Parliament during the monsoon session.8221;

Digvijay Singh has also pointed out in his letter that the existing laws take care of the aspects for which the 87th Amendment was being sought. With indirect elections provided for in the proposed bill, the representatives will have no direct accountability to the people, says Singh.

According to Avdash Kaushal, chairperson of RLEK, a Doon-based NGO working in the field of Panchayati Raj, the 87th Amendment was being strongly opposed by several Chief Ministers, NGOs and others and had little likelihood of being passed by Parliament.

8220;It should be ensured that no State is allowed to postpone elections to the panchayats by relying on the proposed bill,8221; says Kaushal, who successfully fought a case in the Supreme Court against the governments of Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. All these states were asked to hold panchayat elections.

The Andhra Pradesh Government, Kaushal says, was now delaying the holding of panchayat elections on the plea that they would hold the elections after the 87th Amendment Bill was introduced.

The AP Government has been directed by the high court to hold the elections but had now appealed to the Supreme Court.

8220;The existing law of the land must be followed and such reliance on a proposed amendment should not be allowed,8221; Kaushal says. He says the UP Government made a similar appeal in the apex court recently.

The apex court, he says, had directed the UP Government not to delay the elections, which were held recently. Panchayat elections must be held immediately in Andhra Pradesh too without allowing the state government to bank upon the proposed amendment, he says.