(a) Discuss the major provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. Do you think that the Act remains an 'unfulfilled…

The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA), 1992, sought to institutionalize urban local self-governance by granting constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Its major provisions include creating three types of municipality under Article 243Q (Nagar Panchayats for transitional areas, Municipal Councils for smaller urban areas and Municipal Corporations for larger ones), mandating Ward Committees in municipalities of three lakh or more (Article 243S), establishing District Planning Committees (Article 243ZD) and Metropolitan Planning Committees (Article 243ZE), mandating elections every five years, and within six months of any dissolution, via State Election Commissions (Article 243ZA), and instituting State Finance Commissions (SFCs under Article 243Y) alongside the devolution of 18 functional matters under the Twelfth Schedule.

The 74th CAA: An Unfulfilled Dream?

The transformative promise of the 74th CAA remains substantially unrealized due to the incomplete devolution of the 3Fs: Funds, Functions, and Functionaries. Structurally, parastatals (such as Urban Development Authorities) usurp civic functions, leaving ULBs functionally hollowed out, while executive power remains concentrated in state-appointed municipal commissioners rather than elected Mayors.

Fiscally, the Reserve Bank of India's Report on Municipal Finances (2022) found that municipal revenues are only about 1 per cent of GDP, far below the levels in countries such as Brazil and South Africa, and a Comptroller and Auditor General review of the Act's implementation across 18 states (2024) found weak devolution of functions, heavy dependence on transfers and frequent delays in elections. SFC recommendations are routinely ignored by state governments, and urban local governance is further weakened by delayed municipal elections and arbitrary bureaucratic supersession of elected councils.

Conversely, the Act cannot be termed a complete failure: it established a uniform national framework, brought urban governance into constitutional discourse, and mandated political inclusion by reserving one-third of seats for women and proportional seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Nevertheless, without fiscal empowerment and genuine devolution of authority, the Act’s vision of self-reliant local republics remains largely an unfulfilled dream.

NITI Aayog: Reorganizing Indian Planning

NITI Aayog visualizes planning not as a centralized, top-down allocation mechanism, but as a strategic exercise rooted in cooperative federalism and a shared national vision. Set up by a Cabinet resolution on 1 January 2015 and chaired by the Prime Minister, it replaced the erstwhile Planning Commission's rigid Five-Year Plans with a planning architecture comprising a 15-year Vision, a 7-year Strategy and a 3-year Action Agenda; in practice it published the Three Year Action Agenda (2017-20) and the Strategy for New India @75 (2018), and now anchors the Viksit Bharat@2047 vision.

Operating as a policy think tank, it fosters competitive and cooperative federalism through its Governing Council, which brings Chief Ministers to the decision-making core. It drives SDG localization across states through monitoring frameworks and spearheads targeted interventions in backward areas through the data-driven Aspirational Districts Programme.

However, this reorganization has structural limitations. Unlike the Planning Commission, NITI Aayog possesses no financial allocation powers, which have shifted entirely to the Ministry of Finance. Functioning strictly as an advisory body, it faces criticism that its policy recommendations can become technocratic blueprints disconnected from state-level fiscal realities.

The Constitution as the 'Cornerstone of a Nation'

Granville Austin, in The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation (1966), characterized the Constitution as the foundation of the new nation, and in Working a Democratic Constitution (1999) described its three strands - protecting national unity and integrity, establishing democratic institutions, and fostering a social revolution - as a "seamless web".

The Constitution acts as a transformative charter. The Preamble articulates its philosophical anchor of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The dynamic interplay between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) forms the core of this social revolution, aimed at dismantling deeply entrenched caste, gender, and socio-economic hierarchies.

The judiciary has safeguarded this cornerstone through doctrines like the Basic Structure in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and has expanded substantive equality through constitutional morality in Navtej Singh Johar (2018). Yet, contemporary challenges—including the manipulation of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection), systemic judicial delays, and emerging strains on federal relations—continually test the resilience of Austin’s thesis.

Ultimately, sustaining the Constitution as the cornerstone of the nation requires realizing its commitments across all levels: deepening grassroots democracy through the 74th CAA, nurturing cooperative federalism via collaborative planning in NITI Aayog, and steadfastly preserving constitutional morality in institutional conduct.