Basic Structure Theory – KPSC Mains Notes
The Basic Structure Theory is a judicial innovation by the Supreme Court of India, which limits the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. It ensures that certain fundamental features of the Constitution remain inviolable, preserving the essence of Indian democracy and constitutionalism.
- Originated in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case.
- Aimed at maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution over transient legislative majorities.
🔑 Key Concepts & Features
1. Definition
- The Basic Structure refers to those features of the Constitution that are so fundamental that they cannot be altered or destroyed by parliamentary amendments under Article 368.
2. Constitutional Provisions Involved
- Article 368: Grants power to Parliament to amend the Constitution.
- The theory acts as an implied limitation on Article 368.
3. Key Elements of Basic Structure (as evolved by the SC)
- Supremacy of the Constitution
- Sovereign, democratic, and republican nature of the Indian polity
- Secularism
- Separation of powers
- Rule of Law
- Judicial review
- Parliamentary system of government
- Federalism
- Unity and integrity of the nation
- Free and fair elections
- Independence of the judiciary
- Welfare state and social justice
- Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles (in harmony)
⚖️ Judicial Evolution of Basic Structure Doctrine
| Case Name | Year | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Shankari Prasad v. Union of India | 1951 | Held that Fundamental Rights can be amended. |
| Golaknath v. State of Punjab | 1967 | Denied Parliament the power to amend Part III (FRs). |
| Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala | 1973 | Formulated the Basic Structure Doctrine. |
| Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain | 1975 | Struck down the 39th Amendment for violating basic structure. |
| Minerva Mills v. Union of India | 1980 | Asserted limited amending power of Parliament. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | Upheld secularism as part of the basic structure. |
| I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu | 2007 | Judicial review applies even to laws under the Ninth Schedule post-1973. |
🚧 Challenges & Issues
- No clear textual definition in the Constitution.
- Judicial overreach argument – Critics claim the judiciary assumes the role of the legislature.
- Ambiguity over which features are considered part of the basic structure.
- Conflicts between Parliament’s sovereign power to amend and judicial review.
- Political implications – Used to invalidate constitutional amendments passed by majority governments.
🏛️ Relevant Government Schemes & Interventions
While Basic Structure is a judicial doctrine, related democratic strengthening initiatives include:
- National e-Governance Plan (NeGP): Strengthens accountability (linked to Rule of Law).
- Digital India: Reinforces transparency in governance.
- SVEEP (Systematic Voter’s Education and Electoral Participation): Promotes free and fair elections, a core element of the basic structure.
📜 Committees & Reports
- Sarkaria Commission (1983) – Emphasized federalism and the need to preserve the balance between Centre and States.
- Punchhi Commission (2007) – Reiterated importance of federal features as part of the basic structure.
- Law Commission of India (Various Reports) – Consistently advocated for judicial independence and rule of law.
📰 Current Affairs & Relevance
- Article 370 abrogation (2019): Raised debates over federalism and the basic structure.
- Electoral Bonds Scheme – Criticized for undermining transparency in elections (SC judgment in 2024 struck down the scheme).
- Farm Laws Repeal (2021) – Reflected democratic responsiveness and public participation, fundamental democratic values.
- Uniform Civil Code Debate – Invokes secularism, a component of the basic structure.
🧩 Examples & Case Studies
✅ Karnataka-Specific Example:
- Imposition of President’s Rule (1999 & 2007) in Karnataka was reviewed under S.R. Bommai judgment, a basic structure milestone, ensuring federalism and democratic governance.
- Karnataka Lokayukta: Strengthening of accountability institutions aligns with rule of law and democratic values.
🔚 Conclusion & Way Forward
The Basic Structure Doctrine acts as the constitutional “safety valve”, guarding the spirit of democracy and constitutionalism in India. While it ensures a balance of power and prevents authoritarianism, there is a need for:
- Codifying the doctrine through legislative discourse.
- Promoting cooperative federalism.
- Ensuring judicial restraint to maintain institutional harmony.
Way Forward:
- Encourage transparency in judicial reasoning.
- Promote civic education to uphold constitutional values.
- Foster public engagement in democratic institutions to preserve core constitutional ethos.
Emergency Provisions and Decentralization – KPSC Mains Notes
The Constitution of India provides for Emergency Provisions to safeguard the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of the country during extraordinary situations. Simultaneously, it emphasizes Decentralization to empower governance at the grassroots level, ensuring democratic participation and administrative efficiency.
Together, these provisions reflect a balance between central authority and local autonomy — a hallmark of India’s quasi-federal structure.
🔑 Key Concepts & Features
🔴 A. Emergency Provisions
Articles 352 to 360 in Part XVIII of the Constitution deal with emergencies:
1. National Emergency (Article 352)
- Proclaimed on grounds of war, external aggression, or armed rebellion.
- Parliament’s power expands to legislate on State subjects.
- Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are suspended.
- Central control over states intensifies.
2. President’s Rule / State Emergency (Article 356)
- Invoked when constitutional machinery fails in a State.
- President can assume powers of the State government.
- State Assembly may be suspended or dissolved.
- Often criticized as a tool for political misuse.
3. Financial Emergency (Article 360)
- Proclaimed when the financial stability or credit of India is threatened.
- Salaries of government officials, including judges, can be reduced.
- Parliament gains greater fiscal control.
🟢 B. Decentralization
Decentralization refers to the transfer of powers, authority, and responsibilities from the central and state governments to lower levels, primarily local governments.
1. Constitutional Basis
- 73rd Amendment Act (1992): Established Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
- 74th Amendment Act (1992): Empowered Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).
- Introduced 11th and 12th Schedules listing subjects for PRIs and ULBs respectively.
2. Principles of Decentralization
- Democratic Participation
- Administrative Efficiency
- Accountability and Transparency
- Responsive Governance
⚖️ Interrelationship: Centralization During Emergency vs Decentralization
| Emergency Provisions | Decentralization |
|---|---|
| Strengthens Union control | Empowers local self-government |
| Reduces state autonomy | Enhances local accountability |
| Necessary for national integrity | Essential for democratic deepening |
| Temporary in nature | Permanent and institutionalized |
🚧 Challenges & Issues
For Emergency Provisions:
- Political Misuse of Article 356 (e.g., frequent use during 1970s–1990s).
- Lack of Judicial Review during actual proclamation until later judgments.
- Suspension of fundamental rights may affect democratic values.
For Decentralization:
- Inadequate Devolution of funds, functions, and functionaries (3Fs).
- Parallel Bodies like DRDAs undermine PRIs.
- Limited Capacity and autonomy of local bodies.
- Gender and Caste Biases affecting participation.
🏛️ Government Schemes & Interventions
Related to Emergency:
- Disaster Management Act (2005) – Used during COVID-19 to centralize coordination.
- National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) – Central response mechanism.
Related to Decentralization:
- Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) – Capacity building of PRIs.
- SVAMITVA Scheme – Empowering rural property rights via Panchayats.
- Smart Cities Mission & AMRUT – Urban governance improvements.
- 14th and 15th Finance Commission – Increased fiscal transfers to local bodies.
📜 Committees & Reports
| Committee/Commission | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Sarkaria Commission (1983) | Cautioned against misuse of Article 356 |
| Punchhi Commission (2007) | Proposed clear guidelines for emergency proclamation & decentralization |
| Ashok Mehta Committee (1978) | Advocated 2-tier Panchayati Raj system |
| Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957) | Recommended 3-tier PRIs |
| L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986) | Coined the term “democratic decentralization” |
| Second ARC (2005–2009) | Suggested measures for effective local governance |
📰 Current Affairs & Relevance
- COVID-19 Pandemic: Saw the use of central powers akin to emergency, highlighting tension between central authority and local governance.
- 15th Finance Commission (2020): Recommended increased grants to local bodies, stressing on decentralization.
- Simultaneous Elections Debate: Raises questions on Article 356’s implications on dissolved assemblies.
- Local Body Elections in Karnataka: Delays due to delimitation, legal hurdles highlight institutional gaps in decentralization.
🧩 Examples & Case Studies
✅ Karnataka-Specific Examples:
- Use of Article 356:
- In 2007, Karnataka was brought under President’s Rule due to political instability.
- Triggered debates on constitutional morality and cooperative federalism.
- Decentralization:
- Karnataka was the first state to enact a law (1983) for mandating Gram Sabhas.
- Mysuru City Corporation was among the first ULBs to implement e-governance solutions.
- Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 – Ahead in operationalizing 73rd Amendment.
🔚 Conclusion & Way Forward
India’s constitutional framework envisions a strong center for crises and a vibrant grassroots democracy for normal functioning. Emergency provisions and decentralization, though seemingly contradictory, complement each other in securing India’s democratic and administrative architecture.
Way Forward:
- Codify precise conditions for emergency declaration to prevent misuse.
- Empower State Election Commissions for regular local body elections.
- Ensure 3Fs devolution to local bodies.
- Enhance capacity building and financial autonomy of PRIs and ULBs.
- Promote digital governance tools for better transparency at the local level.
Panchayati Raj – KPSC Mains Notes
The Panchayati Raj System in India is a constitutionally mandated framework for democratic decentralization of power to rural areas. It embodies grassroots democracy, aimed at empowering citizens to directly participate in governance and development planning.
The system was constitutionalized through the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, marking a watershed in Indian democracy.
🔑 Key Concepts & Features
📘 Historical Background
- Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957): Recommended a 3-tier system.
- Ashok Mehta Committee (1978): Suggested 2-tier system and political empowerment.
- L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986): Coined the term “democratic decentralization.”
🧱 Constitutional Provisions (73rd Amendment Act, 1992)
- Article 243 to 243-O: Inserted in the Constitution.
- Part IX: Deals with Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs).
- 11th Schedule: Lists 29 functional subjects for PRIs.
🧩 Three-Tier Structure
- Gram Panchayat – Village level
- Panchayat Samiti (Block/Intermediate level)
- Zilla Parishad – District level
🗳️ Key Features
- Direct elections to all levels.
- Reservation: One-third for women (now 50% in many states including Karnataka); SC/ST based on population.
- Five-year term for Panchayats.
- State Election Commission for free and fair elections.
- State Finance Commission every 5 years for financial recommendations.
- Gram Sabha as the foundation of direct democracy.
🚧 Challenges & Issues
| Domain | Key Issues |
|---|---|
| Administrative | Lack of skilled personnel, bureaucratic interference |
| Financial | Inadequate funds, dependence on state grants |
| Political | Elite capture, tokenism in women reservation |
| Legal | Delay in elections, weak implementation of SFC reports |
| Social | Caste, gender discrimination in participation |
🏛️ Government Schemes & Interventions
| Scheme | Objective |
|---|---|
| Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) | Capacity building and training of elected representatives |
| SVAMITVA Yojana | Property cards to rural households for financial empowerment |
| Digital India Program | Digitization of Panchayat records and e-Gram Swaraj portal |
| Mission Antyodaya | Converging schemes at the village level for saturation approach |
| 15th Finance Commission Grants | ₹2.36 lakh crore allocated for rural local bodies (2021–26) |
📜 Committees & Reports
| Committee | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957) | Recommended 3-tier structure |
| Ashok Mehta Committee (1978) | 2-tier PRIs, regular elections, district as the core |
| L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986) | Advocated constitutional status, Gram Sabha empowerment |
| Gadgil Committee (1986) | Model Panchayati Raj law |
| Second ARC Report on Local Governance (2007) | Focused on 3Fs – Functions, Functionaries, Finances |
| Punchhi Commission (2007) | Suggested guidelines to strengthen local governance |
📰 Current Affairs & Relevance
- Women in Panchayats: More than 14 lakh women elected; increasing digital and financial literacy focus.
- Digital Governance: Launch of e-Gram Swaraj Portal & App and Audit Online for transparency.
- Delay in Local Elections: Seen in states like Karnataka due to delimitation and legal hurdles.
- SVAMITVA Scheme Implementation: Karnataka among pilot states, aiding property regularization.
🧩 Examples & Case Studies
✅ Karnataka-Specific Examples:
- Pioneering Legislation: Karnataka enacted its Panchayat Raj Act in 1983 before the 73rd Amendment, making it a forerunner in decentralization.
- Women Empowerment:
- Karnataka reserves 50% of seats in PRIs for women.
- Women-led Panchayats in Mandya and Belagavi have successfully implemented sanitation and digital literacy drives.
- Innovative Gram Sabhas:
- Kodagu and Udupi districts: Gram Sabhas used to finalize developmental priorities, leading to community-owned water conservation projects.
- e-Governance in Panchayats:
- Mysuru District: All Panchayats digitized for record-keeping and service delivery.
- Karnataka ranks high in Panchayat Performance Index published by MoPR.
- Model Panchayats:
- Kudur Gram Panchayat (Ramanagara): Recognized for solid waste management.
- Beeranahalli in Tumakuru: Demonstrated effective convergence of MGNREGS with Swachh Bharat Mission.
🔚 Conclusion & Way Forward
The Panchayati Raj System stands as the foundation of grassroots democracy in India. Despite constitutional and legislative backing, its true potential remains underutilized due to structural, financial, and social challenges.
Way Forward:
- Devolve all 29 subjects of the 11th Schedule with accompanying resources.
- Strengthen Gram Sabhas for real participatory planning.
- Institutionalize Capacity Building of elected representatives.
- Ensure regular elections and effective functioning of State Finance Commissions.
- Promote women and marginalized group leadership with real authority.
- Integrate technology and transparency mechanisms for accountability.
Seventy-Third and Seventy-Fourth Amendments, etc. – KPSC Mains Notes
The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts (1992) marked a historic milestone in India’s democratic journey by institutionalizing Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). These amendments constitutionalized decentralized governance, thereby empowering local self-government in both rural and urban India.
These amendments were enacted to deepen democracy at the grassroots level, ensure participatory development, and enhance accountability and transparency.
🔑 Key Concepts & Features
🔹 A. 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992
Came into force: 24 April 1993
Added Part IX (Articles 243–243O) to the Constitution
Introduced the 11th Schedule (29 subjects for PRIs)
Key Provisions:
- Three-tier structure: Gram Panchayat (village), Panchayat Samiti (intermediate), Zilla Parishad (district)
- Direct elections to all seats in Panchayats
- Reservation: 1/3rd for women (SC/ST also based on proportion)
- Tenure: 5 years with provision for re-election
- Gram Sabha: Direct democratic body at village level
- State Election Commission (SEC): Conducts PRI elections
- State Finance Commission (SFC): Recommends financial devolution
🔹 B. 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992
Came into force: 1 June 1993
Added Part IX-A (Articles 243P–243ZG)
Introduced the 12th Schedule (18 subjects for ULBs)
Key Provisions:
- Classification of Urban Local Bodies:
- Municipal Corporation for large urban areas
- Municipal Council for smaller urban areas
- Nagar Panchayat for transitional areas
- Reservation: For SCs, STs, and 1/3rd for women
- Wards Committees in areas with over 3 lakh population
- Planning Committees: District Planning Committee (DPC) and Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC)
- Five-year tenure
- SEC and SFC provisions apply similarly as in rural bodies
🚧 Challenges & Issues
| Domain | Issues in Implementation |
|---|---|
| Devolution of Powers | Only partial transfer of functions; states control planning and execution |
| Funds | Delayed and inadequate release; lack of financial autonomy |
| Functionaries | Lack of trained personnel; dual control from line departments |
| Capacity | Low capacity of elected representatives; limited orientation |
| Parallel Bodies | DRDAs and state line departments bypass PRIs and ULBs |
| Delayed Elections | Seen in several states, including Karnataka |
🏛️ Government Schemes & Interventions
| Scheme | Related Objective |
|---|---|
| Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA) | Capacity-building of PRIs |
| SVAMITVA Scheme | Property records digitization via Panchayats |
| e-Gram Swaraj Portal | Real-time work and accounting system for PRIs |
| Smart Cities Mission | Enhancing urban governance |
| AMRUT Mission | Infrastructure and governance improvement in ULBs |
| 15th Finance Commission Grants | ₹2.36 lakh crore allocated for PRIs and ULBs (2021–26) |
📜 Committees & Reports
| Committee | Key Recommendations |
|---|---|
| Balwant Rai Mehta Committee (1957) | 3-tier Panchayat system |
| Ashok Mehta Committee (1978) | Strengthened intermediate Panchayat, regular elections |
| L.M. Singhvi Committee (1986) | Constitutional status for PRIs; emphasized Gram Sabha |
| Second ARC (2007) | Focused on Function, Finance, and Functionary devolution |
| Punchhi Commission (2007) | Recommended clear roles for DPCs and SFCs |
| Gadgil Committee (1986) | Proposed model Panchayat Raj Bill |
📰 Current Affairs & Relevance
- 15th Finance Commission: Historic allocation to local bodies; emphasized performance-based grants.
- Digital Tools: e-Gram Swaraj, Audit Online, SVAMITVA have enhanced transparency and property record maintenance.
- Delayed ULB Elections in Karnataka (2021–2023): Due to delimitation and legal issues, highlighting issues in electoral regularity.
- 50% Women Reservation: Being practiced in Karnataka, empowering female leadership in PRIs and ULBs.
🧩 Examples & Case Studies
✅ Karnataka-Specific Examples:
- Pioneering Panchayati Raj Act (1983):
- Karnataka was the first state to enact a law for democratic decentralization even before the 73rd Amendment.
- Inspired many provisions in the 73rd Amendment Act.
- Innovative Gram Sabhas:
- Kodagu and Hassan districts conduct sectoral Gram Sabhas on health, water, and education issues.
- Increase in community engagement and transparency.
- Digitization of Local Governance:
- All 6,000+ Panchayats integrated into e-Gram Swaraj portal.
- Bengaluru’s BBMP adopted GIS-based property tax system – a model for other ULBs.
- Model Panchayats:
- Beeranahalli GP in Tumakuru: Known for 100% sanitation and digitized grievance redressal.
- Ramanagara District ULBs: Lead in implementation of solid waste management under Swachh Bharat Urban.
🔚 Conclusion & Way Forward
The 73rd and 74th Amendments have institutionalized local democracy, making governance more inclusive, responsive, and participatory. However, the spirit of decentralization remains diluted due to centralizing tendencies and operational bottlenecks.
Way Forward:
- Ensure full devolution of 3Fs (Functions, Funds, Functionaries).
- Strengthen SFCs and DPCs to institutionalize planning and finance.
- Regularize and empower Gram and Ward Sabhas.
- Promote capacity-building and digital literacy among local leaders.
- Ensure timely elections and performance-linked grants.
- Use technology to improve transparency and service delivery.
Important Amendments of the Constitution – KPSC Mains Notes
The Constitution of India is a living document that evolves with the changing socio-political and economic needs of the country. The power to amend the Constitution lies with the Parliament under Article 368. Over the decades, several key amendments have reshaped Indian federalism, democracy, and governance structures.
Amendments have played a vital role in expanding rights, enhancing federal balance, empowering local governments, and addressing unforeseen issues in governance.
🔑 Key Concepts & Features
🔹 Article 368: Power of Parliament to Amend
- Two types of amendments:
- By a simple majority (outside the scope of Article 368)
- By special majority of Parliament (with or without ratification by half the states)
- Limitations:
- As per the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973), Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
🏛️ Important Constitutional Amendments
| Amendment | Year | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1st Amendment | 1951 | Empowered the state to make special provisions for backward classes; inserted restrictions in Article 19(1)(a). |
| 7th Amendment | 1956 | Abolished Part B states; reorganized states on linguistic lines (based on Fazl Ali Commission). |
| 24th Amendment | 1971 | Affirmed Parliament’s power to amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights. |
| 25th Amendment | 1971 | Curtailed the Right to Property and empowered the government to acquire private property for public use. |
| 36th Amendment | 1975 | Made Sikkim a full-fledged state of the Indian Union. |
| 42nd Amendment (Mini-Constitution) | 1976 | Added words “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble; curtailed powers of judiciary; made DPSPs superior to FRs in some cases. |
| 44th Amendment | 1978 | Restored FRs and judicial review diluted by the 42nd Amendment; right to property removed from FRs. |
| 52nd Amendment | 1985 | Introduced anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule). |
| 61st Amendment | 1989 | Reduced voting age from 21 to 18 years. |
| 73rd Amendment | 1992 | Gave constitutional status to Panchayati Raj Institutions; added Part IX & 11th Schedule. |
| 74th Amendment | 1992 | Gave constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies; added Part IX-A & 12th Schedule. |
| 86th Amendment | 2002 | Made education a Fundamental Right under Article 21A. |
| 91st Amendment | 2003 | Strengthened anti-defection law; capped Council of Ministers at 15% of legislature. |
| 101st Amendment | 2016 | Introduced Goods and Services Tax (GST). |
| 103rd Amendment | 2019 | Provided 10% reservation for EWS in education and public employment. |
| 105th Amendment | 2021 | Restored states’ power to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). |
🧩 Karnataka-Specific Examples
- 7th Amendment & State Reorganization (1956):
- Mysore State was reorganized and later renamed Karnataka (1973).
- Brought Kannada-speaking regions under one administration.
- 73rd and 74th Amendments Implementation:
- Karnataka was first in the country to pass Panchayati Raj legislation in 1983 even before the constitutional amendment.
- Ramanagara, Tumakuru, and Udupi are examples of successful Panchayats leveraging constitutional backing.
- GST Implementation (101st Amendment):
- Karnataka was among the early adopters; Bengaluru emerged as a GST revenue hub in the southern region.
- EWS Quota (103rd Amendment):
- Karnataka notified reservation in education and employment for EWS based on central guidelines.
🚧 Challenges & Issues
| Issue | Description |
|---|---|
| Excessive Amendments | Over 100 amendments in 75 years raise concerns about constitutional sanctity. |
| Misuse of Article 368 | During Emergency, 42nd Amendment was used to centralize power. |
| Basic Structure Limitations | No clear list of what constitutes the basic structure; creates judicial discretion. |
| Federal Imbalance | Some amendments tilt the balance towards the Centre (e.g., GST). |
| Weak Implementation | States often do not devolve all powers despite the 73rd/74th Amendments. |
📜 Committees & Reports
| Committee | Key Observations |
|---|---|
| Swaran Singh Committee (1976) | Basis for 42nd Amendment recommendations. |
| Punchhi Commission (2007) | Suggested clarity on Centre-State relations and effect of constitutional amendments. |
| Second ARC (2007) | Recommended limiting frequent amendments and enhancing stakeholder consultation. |
| Sarkaria Commission (1983) | Emphasized cooperative federalism and state consultation in constitutional amendments. |
📰 Current Affairs & Relevance
- Basic Structure Doctrine reaffirmed by SC in 2023 in pleas challenging abrogation of Article 370.
- GST Council’s decisions (Post 101st Amendment) continue to be tested for Centre-State balance.
- Karnataka’s use of EWS quota and local body elections being shaped by constitutional amendments.
- Demand for 50% women reservation in PRIs and ULBs gaining traction in Karnataka and elsewhere.
🔚 Conclusion & Way Forward
The Constitutional amendment process is vital to ensure the adaptability and endurance of India’s democracy. However, the sanctity of the basic structure, federal principles, and participatory processes must be protected.
✅ Way Forward:
- Codify the Basic Structure Doctrine to reduce ambiguity.
- Strengthen federalism by ensuring state consultation before key amendments.
- Periodic constitutional audits to review the impact of amendments.
- Encourage citizen participation and awareness about major constitutional changes.
- Ensure full devolution of functions under 73rd and 74th Amendments through enabling legislation.
