Set up by the Department of Rural Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, the Asoka Mehta Committee, appointed in 1977, was tasked with comprehensively reviewing Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and recommending reforms to revitalize these bodies. It was chaired by Asoka Mehta, with members Karpoori Thakur (CM of Bihar); Parkash Singh Badal (CM of Punjab); M.G. Ramachandran (CM of Tamil Nadu); B. Sivaraman (Member of Planning Commission); Mangal Deo (MP); Kunwar Mahmood Ali Khan (MP); Annasaheb P. Shinde (MP); E. M. S. Namboodiripad; S. K. Dey; Siddharaj Dhadda; Iqbal Narain (University of Rajasthan); Vallabhabhai Patel; and S. K. Rau (Member-Secretary).

PRIs, originally established following the recommendations of the Balvantray Mehta Committee in 1957, had been envisioned as decentralized units of governance that would enhance democratic participation and rural development. By the late 1970s, however, PRIs had weakened significantly because of bureaucratic resistance, political interference, and the exclusion of marginalized communities like Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The committee found that PRIs had become largely ineffective in their developmental role because of their limited powers, their lack of financial autonomy, and the administrative centralization that sidelined local bodies from key planning and implementation processes.

The committee’s key recommendations centered on strengthening PRIs by decentralizing power and providing them with greater financial and administrative control. The committee proposed that developmental programs should be transferred from state governments to Zilla Parishads at the district level, making them the principal agencies for planning and implementation. To address the financial inadequacies of PRIs, the committee recommended that they be empowered to raise revenue through land, water, and entertainment taxes, and it suggested creating an Equalization Fund to assist underdeveloped regions in overcoming resource deficits. It also advocated creating a new tier of governance, Mandal Panchayats, covering populations of 15,000 to 20,000, which would provide an intermediate level of governance between village-level Panchayats and district-level Zilla Parishads. The committee’s recommendations called for PRIs to directly control developmental staff, especially Class III and IV employees, to ensure that administrative accountability rested with elected representatives.

A critical aspect of the committee’s report was its emphasis on ensuring broader political participation and representation for marginalized communities. The committee recommended reserving seats for SCs, STs, and women within PRIs, proportional to their population, to ensure equitable participation in governance. It also proposed a separate electoral college for these marginalized groups to further secure their political representation. To address the inefficiencies of Nyaya Panchayats (village judicial bodies), the committee suggested that judicial functions should be separated from executive roles, with qualified judges presiding over local courts.

The committee’s findings also underscored the importance of integrating political parties into Panchayati Raj elections to strengthen the accountability of local governance bodies. This was a marked shift from the earlier stance of keeping PRIs apolitical. The report built on the foundational work of the Balvantray Mehta Committee but provided more concrete measures for decentralization, financial empowerment, and inclusive participation, viewing them as essential to restoring the developmental and democratic potential of PRIs. These reforms were aimed at making PRIs the cornerstone of decentralized rural governance and sustainable development in India.

Notes of four members of the committee were published along with the report. M. G. Ramachandran opposed the creation of Zilla Parishads and Mandal Panchayats, advocating replicating Tamil Nadu’s system of Panchayat Unions and District Development Councils, which he found more effective. He stressed the need for vigilance committees and planning cells at the Panchayat Union level. E. M. S. Namboodiripad supported the recommendations for decentralization and political participation in Panchayat elections but critiqued the insufficient focus on Gram Sabhas and the exclusion of political movements in human resource programs.

S. K. Dey emphasized the need to integrate rural and urban development and advocated devolving power to grassroots institutions. He warned against centralizing authority and called for greater involvement of political parties to strengthen democracy. Siddharaj Dhadda, in his dissent, fundamentally disagreed with the report’s structure, emphasizing that Gram Sabhas should be the cornerstone of PRIs. He argued that true democratic decentralization could only occur if villages were made the fundamental units of governance, enabling genuine self-rule.

The committee’s key recommendations included introducing a two-tier Panchayati Raj system, empowering Zilla Parishads, broadening political participation in Panchayat elections, granting constitutional status to PRIs, and providing reservations for SCs, STs, and women. the recommendations influenced the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1993, which granted constitutional status to PRIs, introduced reservations, and granted taxation powers to local bodies. States such as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and West Bengal partially implemented the committee’s suggestions​.

The Asoka Mehta Committee identified the lack of financial autonomy, administrative centralization, and limited political participation as key weaknesses of Panchayati Raj Institutions. It recommended empowering Zilla Parishads, introducing Mandal Panchayats, and reserving seats for marginalized groups to ensure more inclusive and effective governance. Though not immediately implemented, these recommendations laid the foundation for the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which revitalized decentralized governance in India.