Consider the following statements: I. Panchayats at the intermediate level exist in all States. II. To be eligible to be a Member of a Panchayat at the intermediate level, a person should attain the age of thirty years. III. The Chief Minister of a State constitutes a commission to review the financial position of Panchayats at the intermediate levels and to make recommendations regarding the distribution of net proceeds of taxes and duties, leviable by the State, between the State and Panchayats at the intermediate level. Which of the statements given above are not correct?
Contents13
- AI and II only
- BII and III only
- CI and III only
- DI, II and III
Show answer
Answer: (D) I, II and III
The question asks which statements are NOT CORRECT.
Let's check each:
(I) 'Panchayats at the intermediate level exist in all States' — NOT CORRECT.
Article 243B(2) of the Constitution says that panchayats at the intermediate level need NOT be constituted in states with a population not exceeding 20 lakhs.
So small states are exempt, meaning intermediate panchayats don't exist everywhere.
(II) 'Minimum age for intermediate panchayat membership is 30 years' — NOT CORRECT.
Article 243F(1) states that a person must have attained the age of 21 years (not 30) to be eligible for membership of a panchayat at any level.
The 30-year age requirement applies to the Rajya Sabha, not panchayats.
(III) 'Chief Minister constitutes the finance commission for panchayats' — NOT CORRECT.
Under Article 243I, the GOVERNOR of the State (not the Chief Minister) constitutes a Finance Commission every five years to review the financial position of panchayats and recommend the distribution of taxes and grants.
The Finance Commission is a constitutional body appointed by the Governor.
All three statements are incorrect.
Answer is (d).
Article 243B exempts states with population under 20 lakhs from creating intermediate panchayats, so they don't exist everywhere.
The question tests constitutional provisions that students often confuse - age limits for different bodies, and whether Governor or Chief Minister appoints finance commissions.
UPSC is checking if students can distinguish between similar constitutional requirements across different institutions like panchayats, Parliament, and state finance commissions.
Intermediate Panchayats - Constitutional Framework
Indian Polity Panchayats at the intermediate level intermediate level all States
Intermediate Panchayats: When Required & Constitutional Provisions
Intermediate panchayats are NOT mandatory in states with population ≤ 20 lakh
Article 243B(2) provides exemption for small states from intermediate tier
Three-tier system: Village → Intermediate → District panchayats
Intermediate level is called Panchayat Samiti or Block Panchayat in most states
Constitutional Mandate
Article 243B establishes the three-tier panchayati raj structure but includes a crucial exemption. States with populations not exceeding 20 lakh are not required to constitute intermediate panchayats, making this tier optional rather than universal.
Panchayati Raj Tiers
Level | Official Name | Mandatory Status | Constitutional Provision |
|---|---|---|---|
Village | Gram Panchayat | Mandatory for all states | Article 243B(1) |
Intermediate | Panchayat Samiti/Block Panchayat | Optional if population ≤ 20 lakh | Article 243B(2) |
District | Zilla Panchayat | Mandatory for all states | Article 243B(1) |
States Without Intermediate Panchayats
Goa, Mizoram, Sikkim - population below 20 lakh threshold
Delhi, Chandigarh - Union Territories with different local governance structure
Some states may choose not to establish intermediate tier even if population exceeds threshold
Trap: Statement says intermediate panchayats exist in 'all states' - this ignores the 20 lakh population exemption
Confusion: Students often assume three-tier system is universal - Article 243B(2) provides clear exemption
Memory aid: Remember 20 lakh threshold - smaller states can skip intermediate level
Panchayat Membership - Age Requirements
Indian Polity age of thirty years Member of a Panchayat intermediate level
Panchayat Membership Eligibility: Age & Other Requirements
Minimum age for any panchayat membership is 21 years under Article 243F
No different age requirement for intermediate vs village vs district panchayats
30 years is minimum age for Rajya Sabha, not panchayats
Other eligibility criteria: voter registration, mental soundness, non-disqualification
Constitutional Provision
Article 243F(1) sets uniform eligibility criteria for all panchayat levels. The age requirement is 21 years - same as voting age and Lok Sabha/Assembly membership. There is no higher age bar for intermediate or district panchayats.
Age Requirements Comparison
Office/Institution | Minimum Age | Constitutional Article |
|---|---|---|
Panchayat Member (any level) | 21 years | Article 243F(1) |
Municipality Member | 21 years | Article 243T(1) |
Lok Sabha/Assembly | 25 years | Articles 84(b), 173(b) |
Rajya Sabha/Council | 30 years | Articles 84(b), 173(b) |
President | 35 years | Article 58(a) |
Complete Eligibility Criteria
Age: Must have attained 21 years
Citizenship: Must be a citizen of India
Electoral roll: Name must be included in electoral roll for the panchayat area
Disqualifications: Must not be disqualified under any law for the time being in force
Major Trap: Confusing panchayat age requirement (21 years) with Rajya Sabha (30 years)
UPSC Confusion: Same 21-year age applies to village, intermediate, AND district panchayats
Memory Hook: Panchayats = 21 (voting age), Rajya Sabha = 30, President = 35
State Finance Commission for Panchayats
Indian Polity Chief Minister commission to review financial position of Panchayats distribution of net proceeds
State Finance Commission: Constitutional Role & Appointment
Governor (not Chief Minister) constitutes State Finance Commission under Article 243I
Commission reviews financial position of panchayats and municipalities every 5 years
Makes recommendations on tax devolution and grants-in-aid to local bodies
State government must place commission's report before legislature
Constitutional Framework
Article 243I mandates that the Governor of each state shall constitute a Finance Commission within one year of the commencement of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, and thereafter every five years. This is a constitutional requirement, not an executive discretion of the Chief Minister.
State Finance Commission vs Union Finance Commission
Aspect | State Finance Commission | Union Finance Commission |
|---|---|---|
Appointing Authority | Governor | President |
Constitutional Provision | Article 243I | Article 280 |
Frequency | Every 5 years | Every 5 years |
Scope | State-Panchayat/Municipality devolution | Union-State devolution |
Beneficiaries | Panchayats & Municipalities | State governments |
SFC Process Flow
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`****Governor** constitutes SFC**
Constitutional mandate every 5 years`"]
s2["`**SFC reviews financial position**
Studies panchayat/municipality finances`"]
s3["`**Commission makes recommendations**
Tax devolution, grants-in-aid, revenue sources`"]
s4["`**Report submitted to Governor**
Within specified timeframe`"]
s5["`**Report placed before legislature**
Along with action taken report`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5SFC Mandate & Recommendations
Tax Devolution: Distribution of net proceeds of state taxes between state and local bodies
Grants-in-Aid: Determination of grants from state consolidated fund
Revenue Sources: Measures to improve financial position of panchayats/municipalities
Fiscal Discipline: Principles for sound financial management at local level
Critical Trap: Statement attributes SFC constitution to Chief Minister - it's the Governor's constitutional duty
Authority Confusion: Governor (constitutional head) vs Chief Minister (political executive) - Article 243I is clear
Frequency: Remember every 5 years - not ad hoc or annual
Scope Mix-up: SFC deals with state-local devolution, not union-state (that's Union Finance Commission)