Path of rationalisation of CSS:
● The UPA-2 government approved the Planning Commission's proposal in 2014 to combine the 147 Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) across various sectors and reduce the number to 66 for successful implementation and monitoring of the 12th Five Year Plan.
○ The merger plan was in line with the Chaturvedi committee's recommendations, which recommended lowering CSS to prevent overlap.
● Direct payments to State implementing agencies were phased out beginning in 2014-15, and all transfers to States for Centrally funded schemes are now routed through the State's Consolidated Fund.
● Reduced rigidity in fund use- The flexi-funds available under each CSS have been increased from 10% to 25% for States and 30% for UTs of the total annual allocation under each Scheme.
Need for rationalisation of CSS:
● Development that is inclusive—the Special Category States receives additional assistance, which ensures that the country's growth is balanced.
● Assists in the better execution of programmes, which can be beneficial. Demonstrate positive characteristics, conduct research on various topics, and create a plan at the rate at which other states follow suit with reforms.
● Create a strategic development infrastructure to achieve important national goals including poverty reduction and minimum educational standards etc.
● It is important to gradually stop the funding for those CSS and their subcomponents which have either outlived their utility or have insignificant budgetary outlays not commensurate to a national programme.
○ if a scheme has little funding, below a threshold, it has limited utility and does not deserve to be a national programme.
Conclusion
CSS reorganisation and rationalisation should not imply a simple rearrangement. The majority of the CSS has been repackaged and retained, as has been noticed over time. Because the schemes are implemented by states, they should have a lot of leeway in ensuring that they benefit the intended groups.
CADRE ISSUE FOR CIVIL SERVANTS
The Supreme Court said that successful civil services aspirants have no right to be allocated a cadre of their choice or their home state, and also noted that before selection they opt to serve anywhere in the country ‘with eyes open’ but later scramble for home cadre.
Present cadre Policy
The government has adopted a new civil servant cadre allocation strategy that will take effect after the CSE 2017.
● The decree, was issued, aims to improve the country's bureaucracy's 'national integration.' Officers will have to specify their zonal preferences rather than their cadre choices.
More on Judgement:
In his judgement supreme court observed that:
● The State has no discretion of allocation of a cadre at its whims and fancies.
● Therefore, the Tribunal or the High Court refrain from interfering with the allocation of cadre on the argument of the alleged violation of the allocation circular.
● The allocation of cadres is not a matter of right. It was held that a selected candidate has a right to be considered for appointment to the IAS but he has no such right to be allocated to a cadre of his choice or his home state.
Significance of the Judgement
Affirming with All India services: The applicant as a candidate for the All-India Service with eyes wide open has opted to serve anywhere in the country.
What is social accountability?
Social accountability is an obligation and responsibility on the part of the government to be answerable to the citizens for its actions. Accountability of government officials is a cornerstone and a must for ensuring good governance.
● For example: Social accounting is a method of auditing a government programme with the active participation of the program's intended beneficiaries.
○ The process concludes with the holding of public hearings at which the findings are reviewed and disparities are revealed in front of service providers, officials, and beneficiaries.
Need for Social accountability
● Empowering Citizens: Citizen empowerment defines opportunities and accessibility provided to citizens by their leaders and representatives, to develop capabilities that are valuable to actively participate in the development and decision making of a community.
● Governance: Improving the trust between governments and citizens is fundamental to good governance.
● Accountability and Transparency: Social accountability augments traditional auditing processes. Thus, it will remove biases in funding allocation and auditing.
Challenges associated with the Social accountability
● Coercion from large vested interests might cause communities to be cautious to directly participate and speak up in Social Accountability activities.
● Ineffective redressal of grievances: The effectiveness of Social Accountability projects depends on strict and consistent follow-up action on results through effective grievance redressal systems.
● Resistance to reform: This can lead to entrenched interests withholding critical information or providing insufficient information, such as budget papers, which are required for the successful implementation of many Social Accountability programmes.
● Citizens' complacency: This usually occurs when powerful individuals of the community are co-opted into the system, or when the profits of corruption and wrongdoing are shared by the entire community.
Case study
● Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), a grassroots organisation founded in Rajasthan, used social audits' to shatter the state's monopoly on official scrutiny and legitimise people participation in hitherto exclusive state issues.
● Kerala's People's Campaign for Decentralized Planning: Its success has been ascribed to significant financial and functional devolution, as well as institutional incentives for participation, which have resulted in increased representation of formerly marginalised voices such as SCs, STs, and women.
Conclusion
The current era necessitates enactment of a central law on social accountability in order to make the system more accountable, transparent, and efficient, thereby making government programmes more accessible to the poor, marginalised, and disadvantaged segments of society and assisting in poverty reduction and development.
Need for Cooperative Ministry
The cooperative movement certainly needs reform and revitalisation. Beset by political interference, many cooperative societies do not hold elections regularly, while some are superseded frequently.
Significance of Ministry of Cooperation
● Separate administrative setup: Ministry of Cooperation will provide a separate administrative legal and policy framework for strengthening the cooperative movement in the country.
● Promoting cooperatives at grass root level: It will help deepen Co-operatives as a true people basedmovement reaching up to the grassroots.
● Ease of doing Business: The Ministry will work to streamline processes for ‘Ease of doing business’ for co-operatives and enable development of Multi-State Co-operatives (MSCS).
Recent observation of Supreme court on Cooperatives
Part of the 97th Amendment Act, as well as Part IX B of the Constitution, which oversees the country's "Cooperative Societies," were struck down by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
● A 'State' subject is 'Cooperatives.' The 97th Amendment Act, on the other hand, was approved by Parliament without being ratified by state legislatures, as the Constitution requires.
● The Supreme Court ruled that Part IXB of the Constitution only applies to Multi-State Cooperative Societies within the several States and in the Union Territories.
● The Supreme Court has ruled that state legislatures have "exclusive legislative power" over cooperative groups.
Significance of the Verdict
● Empowering the states: co-operative societies come under the “exclusive legislative power” of State legislatures.
○ The judgment may be significant in the background of fears voiced by States whether the new Central Ministry of Cooperation would dis-empower them.
● Quasi-federal Nature of the Constitution: so far as legislative powers are concerned, though there is a tilt in favour of the Centre vis-à-vis the States given the federal supremacy principle outlined herein above, yet within their own sphere, the States have exclusive power to legislate on topics reserved exclusively to them.
More on Judgement
● All criteria that are relevant to the proper use of the grant-in-aid by an educational institution can be imposed on both the majority and minority institution.
○ Art 30 (2) states that the state cannot discriminate in awarding help based on the fact that the institute is governed by a minority (linguistic or religious), so the terms of aid remain the same regardless of whether the management belongs to the majority or minority population.
● An institution cannot contest the decision as a "matter of right" if the government has made a policy decision to remove aid.
● A grant of government assistance comes with strings attached. An institution has the option of accepting the funding with the conditions attached or forging its own path.
Why can't institutions see government assistance as a "right"?
Aid from the government is a policy decision. It depends on a number of things, including
● the institution's own objectives and the government's ability to comprehend the exercise.
● Financial limits and shortages are important issues to consider while making a decision about aid.
● It encompasses both the choice to offer aid and the manner in which it is disbursed
Repealing Law Made by Parliament
