Bridging the Institutional Gap: Integrating VPRP with Village Authority–Led Participatory Development Planning and Public Financing in the Hill Areas of Manipur

-          T. Zamlunmang Zou

Preface

This research emerged from my professional engagement with participatory development planning under the Manipur State Rural Livelihoods Mission (MSRLM)[1]. As a Block Mission Manager, I initially undertook the mobilisation of Self-Help Group (SHG) members and non-SHG households to ensure their active participation in the preparation of the Village Prosperity Resilience Plan (VPRP)[2] in Imphal East, where the Panchayati Raj system provides an established institutional framework for local development planning.

The VPRP process encompasses five important components: Entitlement Plan; Social Inclusion and Social Development; Public Goods and Services; Resource Development; and Livelihoods. Through field-level experience, it became apparent that the first two components - entitlements, social inclusion and social development - could be pursued comparatively effectively through convergence and partnership with concerned line departments, government institutions and other service-delivery agencies. However, the remaining components, particularly public goods and services, resource development and livelihood promotion, require a more systematic institutional approach involving planning, prioritisation, resource allocation, technical support, implementation and monitoring by the government.

After serving for several years in the valley areas, I was subsequently posted as the District Mission Manager, Tengnoupal, a hill district where the Panchayati Raj system is not applicable and village-level governance is organised through Village Authorities. In Tengnoupal, I facilitated the implementation of VPRP for three consecutive years. This experience brought into sharper focus the institutional and operational challenges of translating community-generated priorities into tangible development interventions. Although communities were able to identify their needs, vulnerabilities and aspirations through the VPRP process, the hill areas lacked a clearly defined and systematic mechanism for integrating these priorities into formal development plans, securing financial resources and ensuring coordinated implementation.

The contrast between the planning environment in the valley and the institutional realities of the hill areas prompted a deeper inquiry into the structural gaps affecting participatory development planning in the hills. It became increasingly evident that the central challenge was not the absence of community participation or locally identified priorities, but the lack of an appropriate institutional bridge connecting these priorities with the planning, financing and implementation systems of the State Government, District Councils and Village Authorities.

This realisation led me to explore possible institutional and policy pathways for addressing the development-planning gap in the Hill Areas of Manipur. The present paper is the outcome of that professional experience, field-based learning and continuing search for a legally compatible, financially accountable and practically viable framework for integrating community-led planning with existing hill-area governance institutions.

The study therefore seeks to examine how VPRP, as a community-based planning tool, can be connected to a broader village-level participatory planning process suited to the institutional context of the Hill Areas. It also explores how the priorities relating to public goods and services, resource development and livelihood promotion may be systematically incorporated into development plans and supported through appropriate government financing and convergence mechanisms. In this sense, the paper represents both an academic inquiry and a practice-informed effort to contribute to more inclusive, responsive and context-sensitive development planning in the Hill Areas of Manipur.

Abstract

Participatory development planning is central to inclusive, accountable and locally responsive rural governance. Under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana–National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM), the Village Prosperity Resilience Plan (VPRP) provides a community-led mechanism through which Self-Help Groups (SHGs), Village Level Federations (VLFs)[3] and vulnerable households identify development priorities and place them before local planning institutions. In the ordinary Panchayati Raj framework, such priorities may be integrated into the Gram Panchayat Development Plan (GPDP). However, the institutional and constitutional context of the Hill Areas of Manipur is substantially different.

The Hill Areas of Manipur are excluded from the ordinary constitutional framework of Part IX of the Constitution concerning Panchayats where District Councils exist. Article 371C establishes a special constitutional arrangement for the Hill Areas, while the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 provides for Village Authorities as traditional village-level institutions. The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 provides District Councils with a range of developmental and financial functions, but it does not establish an automatic mechanism for transferring GPDP or Panchayat-related grants directly to Village Authorities. The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 also excludes areas governed by the Hill Areas District Councils and Village Authorities legislation.

This article critically examines the constitutional, legal and institutional relationship between VPRP, GPDP, Village Authorities, District Councils and State Government financing in the Hill Areas of Manipur. It argues that Village Authorities cannot simply be designated as Gram Panchayats without appropriate legislative or administrative intervention. Nevertheless, the existing legal framework provides sufficient institutional foundations for developing a distinct Hill-area model of participatory planning and decentralised financing.

The article proposes a Village Participatory Development Plan (VPDP) as a Hill-area counterpart to the GPDP. Under the proposed architecture, community priorities generated through VPRP would be validated through village-level consultation, endorsed by the Village Authority, technically appraised at the block level, consolidated at the district or District Council level, and financed through a dedicated Village Development Fund Window[4]. The proposed fund may consist of a Basic Village Development Grant[5], a Plan and Performance Grant, and a Scheme-Convergence Fund. Financial safeguards would include Village Development Accounts, approved annual plans, expenditure registers, asset registers, utilisation certificates, social audits and independent financial audits.

The article concludes that the constitutional exclusion of the Hill Areas from the Panchayati Raj system does not prevent participatory development planning or decentralised public financing. Rather, it requires a legally compatible institutional model that recognises the role of Village Authorities while maintaining coordination with District Councils, line departments, DAY-NRLM institutions and the State Government.

Keywords: DAY-NRLM; Village Prosperity Resilience Plan; Village Authority; Gram Panchayat Development Plan; Manipur Hill Areas; District Councils; participatory planning; fiscal decentralisation; Village Development Fund; rural governance.

1. Introduction

Participatory planning seeks to ensure that development priorities are identified by the people who experience local deprivation and are directly affected by public expenditure. It moves development planning away from an exclusively departmental or top-down approach and promotes the participation of communities, local institutions, civil society organisations and vulnerable households.

In rural India, the Gram Panchayat Development Plan has emerged as an important instrument for decentralised planning. The GPDP process is intended to bring together local needs, community priorities, available resources and departmental schemes through a participatory planning process. The People’s Plan Campaign has further emphasised Gram Sabha participation, convergence, transparency and evidence-based planning (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India, n.d.-a, n.d.-b).

Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM) adds a community-centred dimension to this planning process through the Village Prosperity Resilience Plan, formally known as Village Poverty Reduction Plan. The VPRP is prepared through the participation of SHGs, VLFs and vulnerable households. It identifies household and community-level priorities relating to livelihoods, social development, social protection, access to public services and entitlements. The VPRP is therefore not merely a list of demands; it is a mechanism for aggregating community knowledge and linking it with public planning and resource allocation.

However, the integration of VPRP with GPDP cannot be applied uniformly throughout India. The Hill Areas of Manipur have a distinct constitutional, legal and institutional arrangement. The areas governed by District Councils are excluded from Part IX of the Constitution, which deals with Panchayats. The village-level institution in these areas is generally the Village Authority, established under the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. The District Councils operate under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971.

This creates an important policy question:

How can the community priorities generated through DAY-NRLM’s VPRP be integrated into a legally appropriate village-level development planning and fund-flow system in the Hill Areas of Manipur, where the ordinary Gram Panchayat and GPDP framework do not automatically apply?

The question has both legal and practical significance. If the ordinary GPDP framework is applied without considering the constitutional and statutory position of the Hill Areas, the process may create institutional confusion. Conversely, if the Village Authorities are excluded from participatory planning and development financing, community-generated priorities may remain disconnected from public budgets and development programmes.

This article therefore examines the legal and institutional foundations for a Hill-specific participatory planning framework and proposes a mechanism for routing public development funds to Village Authorities through accountable and constitutionally compatible arrangements.

2. Objectives of the Study

2.1 General Objective

The general objective of this study is:

To critically examine the constitutional, legal and institutional framework governing participatory development planning in the Hill Areas of Manipur and to formulate a legally defensible, financially accountable and institutionally appropriate mechanism for integrating DAY-NRLM’s VPRP with Village Authority-led development planning and direct State Government fund flow.

2.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives are to:

1. Examine the constitutional status of the Hill Areas of Manipur, particularly Articles 243M and 371C of the Constitution of India.
2. Analyse the legal status, structure and functions of Village Authorities under the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956.
3. Examine the developmental, planning and financial powers of District Councils under the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971.
4. Identify the legal and institutional gaps in applying the VPRP–GPDP convergence model to the Hill Areas of Manipur.
5. Examine the relevance of the Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000 as a legislative precedent, while recognising that it was not brought into force.
6. Assess the relevance and limitations of comparative frameworks such as the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution.
7. Examine the feasibility of establishing a Village Authority-led participatory development planning system.
8. Develop a Hill-specific Village Participatory Development Plan architecture.
9. Formulate a transparent and accountable mechanism for the flow of State Government and converged scheme funds to Village Authorities.
10. Recommend an appropriate legal, administrative and financial framework for piloting and institutionalising the proposed model in the Hill Areas of Manipur.

3. Research Proposition

The central proposition of this article is:

The constitutional exclusion of the Hill Areas of Manipur from the ordinary Panchayati Raj framework does not preclude participatory development planning or decentralised public financing. Rather, it necessitates the creation of a distinct, legally compatible institutional mechanism that connects DAY-NRLM’s community-generated VPRP priorities with Village Authorities, District Councils and State Government planning and financial systems.

4. Methodological Approach

The article adopts a qualitative, doctrinal and policy-analytical approach. It is based on:

·         Examination of relevant constitutional provisions;

·         Analysis of the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956;

·         Analysis of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971;

·         Examination of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994;

·         Review of the Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000;

·         Examination of official GPDP and People’s Plan Campaign materials;

·         Analysis of DAY-NRLM’s VPRP framework;

·         Comparative consideration of PESA and the Sixth Schedule; and

• Development of a policy model for participatory planning and fund flow.

The article distinguishes between:

1.       Operative law, which is currently legally enforceable;

2.       Legislative precedent, which may inform policy design but does not presently govern administration; and

3. Comparative constitutional and statutory models, which may provide lessons but cannot be treated as directly applicable to Manipur Hill Areas.

5. Constitutional Context of the Hill Areas of Manipur

5.1 Article 243M and the Exclusion from Part IX

Part IX of the Constitution establishes the constitutional framework for Panchayats. It provides for Gram Sabhas, Panchayats at different levels, elections, reservation, tenure, powers, responsibilities and financial arrangements.

However, Article 243M provides exceptions to the application of Part IX. In particular, the Hill Areas of Manipur for which District Councils exist are excluded from the ordinary Panchayati Raj framework. Consequently, the institutional design applicable to Gram Panchayats cannot automatically be extended to the Hill Areas merely through administrative instructions.

This constitutional exclusion has two major implications.

First, Village Authorities in the Hill Areas cannot automatically be treated as Gram Panchayats for all constitutional and statutory purposes. Second, funds specifically created or devolved under the Panchayati Raj framework cannot automatically be presumed to be payable to Village Authorities without a separate legal, financial or administrative basis.

The exclusion, however, should not be interpreted as an exclusion from development planning. It is an exclusion from a particular constitutional institutional framework. It does not prohibit the State Government from creating other lawful mechanisms for participatory planning, local development, public accountability or decentralised financing.

5.2 Article 371C and the Special Constitutional Framework

Article 371C provides a special constitutional framework for the Hill Areas of Manipur. It provides for the constitution of a Hill Areas Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and enables special arrangements concerning the administration of the Hill Areas.

The significance of Article 371C lies in its recognition that the Hill Areas require an institutional arrangement sensitive to their distinct historical, social, customary and administrative conditions. Any proposed village-level planning or financing mechanism should therefore be designed in a manner that respects:

·         The constitutional position of the Hill Areas;

·         The role of the Hill Areas Committee;

·         The statutory position of District Councils;

·         Customary institutions and village-level governance;

·         The administrative authority of the State Government; and

• The development needs of rural and tribal communities.

A Hill-specific participatory planning system should therefore be viewed not as an attempt to replicate the Panchayati Raj system, but as an institutional adaptation suited to the constitutional and administrative context of Manipur.

6. Village Authorities under the 1956 Act

6.1 Establishment and Legal Status

The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 provides for the constitution and functioning of Village Authorities in the Hill Areas of Manipur. The Act recognises Village Authorities as formal village-level institutions within the statutory administration of the Hill Areas.

Section 14 of the Act gives the Village Authority a corporate legal character. It provides, among other things, that the Village Authority has perpetual succession and a common seal, may sue and be sued, may acquire and hold property, may enter into contracts, and may undertake activities necessary for the purposes of the Act (Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956, § 14).

This provision is significant because it demonstrates that the Village Authority is not merely an informal customary body. It possesses a degree of statutory institutional personality. Such legal personality may provide a foundation for assigning carefully defined administrative and financial responsibilities through appropriate legislation, rules, guidelines or government orders.

6.2 Administrative Supervision

The Act places Village Authorities within a structure of administrative supervision. Section 15 provides for control by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the general superintendence of the Deputy Commissioner (Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956, § 15).

This arrangement indicates that Village Authorities operate within a system of State administration rather than as fully autonomous local governments. Any proposed financial devolution should therefore define:

·         the nature of the funds;

·         the authority competent to sanction expenditure;

·         the responsibilities of the Village Authority;

·         the role of the Deputy Commissioner and other district officials;

·         reporting and audit requirements; and

• procedures for addressing irregularities.

6.3 Functions under the Act

The statutory functions of Village Authorities under the 1956 Act are principally associated with village administration, maintenance of order, reporting offences, assisting public authorities and related administrative matters. The Act does not establish a comprehensive modern village development planning mandate comparable to the functions assigned to Gram Panchayats under the Panchayati Raj framework.

The Act also does not create an express, comprehensive and automatic Village Authority Development Fund into which State Government development grants must be transferred annually.

This is the principal legal gap relevant to VPRP and GPDP convergence. Although the Village Authority has a statutory identity and institutional presence, the 1956 Act does not itself establish the complete legal architecture required for:

·         Annual participatory development planning;

·         Preparation and approval of a village development plan;

·         Receipt of multiple development grants;

·         Maintenance of a development account;

·         Procurement and execution of public works;

·         Social audit;

·         Asset management; and

• Formal integration with block, district and State planning systems.

Therefore, the Village Authority may serve as an institutional platform for participatory planning, but a specific legal or administrative instrument would be required to assign it development-planning and financial-management functions.

7. District Councils under the 1971 Act

7.1 Developmental Functions

The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 provides District Councils with a range of developmental responsibilities. These include matters relating to:

Thematic Category	Functions Included
1. Physical Infrastructure and Connectivity	Roads and bridges
2. Education and Basic Health Services	Schools and dispensaries
3. Water Resources and Irrigation	Drinking water; agricultural water supply
4. Agriculture, Livelihoods and Animal Resources	Agriculture; livestock; animal husbandry; shifting cultivation
5. Natural Resource and Environmental Management	Soil conservation; forests; land use
6. Public Health, Sanitation and Community Well-being	Public health and sanitation
7. Economic Infrastructure and Local Markets	Markets
8. Disaster Response and Humanitarian Assistance	Relief works
9. Rural Development and Social Empowerment	Community development; social and tribal welfare
10. Participatory Planning and Local Governance	Village planning, where such responsibilities are entrusted

 

The inclusion of community development, social welfare and village planning within the developmental field of District Councils is important. It creates a potential institutional bridge between village-level priorities and district-level planning.

However, the existence of District Council functions does not automatically mean that each Village Authority possesses an independent statutory entitlement to development grants. The Act establishes a District Council-level framework. It does not necessarily create a direct, formula-based or unconditional fiscal transfer from the State Government to every Village Authority.

7.2 District Council Fund

The 1971 Act provides for a District Council Fund. The Fund forms part of the financial structure through which the District Council may receive, manage and utilise resources for its statutory responsibilities.

The existence of the District Council Fund demonstrates that the legal framework recognises public financial management at the District Council level. It also suggests that District Councils may serve as an important coordination and consolidation institution for village-level development plans.

Nevertheless, the District Council Fund should not be confused with a Village Authority Development Fund. A District Council-level fund does not automatically provide:

·         A separate account for each Village Authority;

·         A formula-based annual grant to each village;

·         Direct expenditure authority for Village Authorities; or

• A legally guaranteed village-level share of District Council resources.

For a VPRP-linked planning system to become operational, the State Government and District Councils would need to establish a clear mechanism for translating village priorities into district plans and then allocating approved resources to village-level implementing institutions.

8. The 2000 Act as Legislative Precedent

The Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000 is important as a legislative precedent, although it was not brought into force and was subsequently repealed. It therefore cannot be treated as operative law.

The significance of the 2000 Act lies in the fact that it contemplated a more explicit relationship between District Councils and Village Councils in matters of development planning and financing.

Among the powers contemplated under the 2000 Act were provisions relating to:

·         Rural development;

·         Water supply;

·         Watershed development;

·         Health;

·         Education;

·         Communication;

·         Rural electrification;

·         Public utilities;

·         Grants to Village Councils;

·         Coordination and integration of development plans prepared by Village Councils; and

• Examination and sanction of Village Council budget estimates.

The Act also contemplated a District Development Plan and a District Council Fund. These provisions are particularly relevant to the present policy discussion because they show that a legislative model for connecting village-level plans, District Council planning and village-level grants had previously been considered.

However, the 2000 Act must be used carefully. It is not a presently enforceable legal basis for transferring funds to Village Authorities. Its value is conceptual and legislative: it demonstrates that a more integrated village–District Council planning and financing system is legally conceivable and has previously appeared in the legislative imagination of Manipur.

Accordingly, the 2000 Act may be treated as a policy precedent, not as an operative source of authority.

9. Relationship between GPDP, VPRP and the Hill Areas

GPDP is a participatory planning method and institutional process, whereas VPRP is a community-based planning tool used to identify and consolidate the needs, vulnerabilities, demands and aspirations of poor and vulnerable households.

9.1 GPDP in the Ordinary Panchayati Raj Framework

The GPDP is designed for Gram Panchayats functioning under the constitutional and statutory Panchayati Raj framework. It generally involves:

·         Identification of local development needs;

·         Gram Sabha participation;

·         Resource mapping;

·         Convergence of departmental schemes;

·         Prioritisation of activities;

·         Preparation of annual plans;

·         Approval through prescribed institutions;

·         Implementation and monitoring; and

• Social and financial accountability.

The GPDP process is therefore institutionally linked to Gram Panchayats, Gram Sabhas, Panchayat-level planning systems and Panchayat-related financial transfers.

9.2 VPRP as a Community-Generated Planning Instrument

The VPRP is generated through community institutions under DAY-NRLM. It brings together the priorities of SHGs, VLFs and vulnerable households. Its broad areas may include:

·         Livelihood enhancement;

·         Access to financial services;

·         Social protection;

·         Entitlements;

·         Food and nutrition security;

·         Health and sanitation;

·         Housing;

·         Drinking water;

·         Roads and connectivity;

·         Education;

·         Vulnerable household support; and

• Community infrastructure.

The VPRP is therefore highly relevant to the Hill Areas, where geographical isolation, limited banking access, weak infrastructure, livelihood vulnerability and gaps in public service delivery may require locally informed planning.

9.3 The Institutional Gap

The principal problem is not the absence of community priorities. The problem is the absence of a clearly recognised institutional and financial pathway through which those priorities can be:

1.       Validated;

2.       Converted into a village development plan;

3.       Technically appraised;

4.       Incorporated into block and district plans;

5.       Linked with scheme guidelines;

6.       Financed; and

7. Implemented through accountable village-level institutions.

In ordinary Panchayat areas, the VPRP may be integrated into GPDP. In the Hill Areas of Manipur, the equivalent pathway must be adapted to the Village Authority and District Council framework.

10. Why Village Authorities Should Not Simply Be Designated as Gram Panchayats

The Village Authority and the Gram Panchayat are not institutionally identical.

A Gram Panchayat derives its constitutional position from Part IX of the Constitution and operates under the relevant State Panchayati Raj legislation. Its functions, elections, reservations, tenure, powers, finances and accountability mechanisms are structured through that framework.

A Village Authority in the Hill Areas, by contrast, derives its statutory status from the 1956 Act and operates within a different constitutional and administrative context. Its composition, customary legitimacy, statutory functions and relationship with district administration are different.

Treating Village Authorities as Gram Panchayats without legal clarification may create several problems:

·         Constitutional inconsistency;

·         Uncertainty regarding elections and representation;

·         Confusion over statutory functions;

·         Ambiguity concerning the authority to sanction expenditure;

·         Uncertainty regarding procurement and audit;

·         Disputes concerning the relationship between Village Authorities and District Councils;

·         Possible conflict with customary institutions; and

·         Difficulty in applying Panchayat-specific grants and accounting rules.

 

The more defensible approach is to create a Hill-specific participatory planning and financing framework that recognises the Village Authority as the village-level institutional platform without artificially converting it into a Gram Panchayat.

11. Proposed Village Participatory Development Plan

11.1 Concept

This article proposes the creation of a Village Participatory Development Plan, or VPDP, for the Hill Areas of Manipur.

The VPDP would function as the village-level development plan prepared through community participation and endorsed by the Village Authority. It would not be described as a GPDP unless the legal framework is formally amended to make the GPDP applicable.

The VPDP would integrate:

·         VPRP priorities;

·         Village-level infrastructure needs;

·         Livelihood and economic development priorities;

·         Social protection requirements;

·         Public service gaps;

·         Natural resource management needs;

·         Climate and disaster vulnerabilities;

·         Gender and social inclusion concerns;

·         Available government schemes; and

• Resources available through the State Government, District Councils and other institutions.

11.2 Proposed Planning Chain

The proposed planning chain is:

SHGs and VLFs → VPRP → Village Assembly or Community Consultation → Village Authority Endorsement → VPDP → Block-Level Technical Appraisal → Block Consolidated Plan → District Council or District-Level Development Plan → State or Departmental Sanction → Village Development Account → Implementation → Social Audit → Financial Audit

This chain separates community priority-setting from technical appraisal and financial control while ensuring that village priorities are not disconnected from public expenditure systems.

11.3 Proposed Institutional Roles

A. SHGs and Village Level Federations

SHGs and VLFs would:

·         identify vulnerable households;

·         Prepare household and community priorities;

·         Consolidate livelihood and social development needs;

·         Facilitate participation of women and disadvantaged groups;

·         Prepare the VPRP; and

• Present the VPRP to the village-level planning process.

B. Village Assembly or Community Consultation

The village-level consultation process would:

·         Validate the VPRP;

·         Identify common priorities;

·         Rank activities;

·         Discuss feasibility and urgency;

·         Identify beneficiaries;

·         Ensure inclusion of vulnerable groups; and

• Promote transparency in the selection of activities.

The precise nomenclature and composition of the village consultation forum should be determined through local consultation and legal vetting, particularly because village institutions and customary practices vary across the Hill Areas.

C. Village Authority

The Village Authority would:

·         Endorse the VPDP;

·         Coordinate with SHGs, VLFs and village residents;

·         Facilitate access to village-level information;

·         Support identification of land or community resources where appropriate;

·         Monitor implementation;

·         Maintain prescribed records;

·         Facilitate social audit; and

·         Act as the village-level institutional interface with the block and district administration.

 

The Village Authority should not be assigned technical functions for which it lacks capacity. Engineering design, procurement approval, technical measurement and scheme-specific certification should remain with competent government or authorised technical personnel.

D. Block Mission Management Unit and Block Administration

The BMMU, Block Development Office and relevant line departments would:

·         Examine the VPDP;

·         Map activities to government schemes;

·         Identify eligible beneficiaries;

·         Assess technical feasibility;

·         Prepare cost estimates;

·         Identify convergence opportunities;

·         Eliminate duplication;

·         Prioritise activities based on available resources; and

• Consolidate village plans into a block-level plan.

E. District Council or District-Level Institution

The District Council or designated district-level institution would:

·         Consolidate block plans;

·         Assess inter-village equity;

·         Coordinate development priorities;

·         Identify district-level infrastructure;

·         Integrate village plans into broader district development priorities;

·         Facilitate convergence with District Council functions; and

• Recommend resource allocation.

F. State Government

The State Government would:

·         Establish the policy and legal framework;

·         Provide budgetary resources;

·         Issue financial rules and guidelines;

·         Define eligible activities;

·         Ensure coordination among departments;

·         Provide technical and financial oversight;

·         Establish monitoring systems; and

• Evaluate the pilot and consider legislative institutionalisation.

12. Proposed Village Development Fund

12.1 Rationale

The successful implementation of VPDP requires more than the preparation of plans. Without a predictable and transparent financing mechanism, participatory planning may become a consultative exercise without meaningful implementation.

The proposed Village Development Fund should therefore provide a structured financial window for approved village-level development activities. The Fund may be established through:

·         A State Government budgetary provision;

·         An administrative scheme;

·         Guidelines issued in consultation with the Finance Department;

·         An arrangement involving District Councils;

·         A special grant mechanism; or

• Subsequent legislative or regulatory intervention.

The precise legal form should be determined through legal and financial scrutiny. An executive guideline should not be used to override statutory restrictions or create powers inconsistent with existing legislation.

12.2 Proposed Fund-Flow Chain

The proposed fund-flow chain is:

State Government → Hill Areas/Village Development Fund Window → District or Authorised Allocation Mechanism → Village Development Account → Approved VPDP Activities → Community-Level Implementation → Reporting, Social Audit and Financial Audit

The fund-flow mechanism should clearly specify:

·         The source of funds;

·         The sanctioning authority;

·         The receiving institution;

·         The permissible expenditure;

·         The release conditions;

·         The accounting procedure;

·         The reporting format;

·         The audit authority; and

• The procedure for recovery of misused funds.

12.3 Components of the Village Development Fund

A. Basic Village Development Grant

The Basic Village Development Grant would provide a predictable annual allocation for small-scale village priorities. It may support activities such as:

·         Minor community infrastructure;

·         Drinking water-related works;

·         Sanitation;

·         Village paths;

·         Community sheds;

·         Livelihood-support infrastructure;

·         Repair of common assets;

·         Community resource management; and

• Other eligible activities identified in the VPDP.

The grant should be allocated through a transparent formula rather than solely through discretionary decisions.

Possible formula variables may include:

·         Population;

·         Number of households;

·         Number of SHG households;

·         Geographical remoteness;

·         Terrain and transport costs;

·         Connectivity;

·         Poverty and vulnerability;

·         Disaster exposure;

·         Distance from block headquarters; and

• Availability of basic public services.

B. Plan and Performance Grant

The Plan and Performance Grant would be linked to institutional and financial performance. Eligibility may depend on:

·         Preparation of the VPDP;

·         Evidence of community consultation;

·         Village Authority endorsement;

·         Maintenance of financial records;

·         Timely submission of utilisation certificates;

·         Completion of social audit;

·         Maintenance of asset registers;

·         Disclosure of expenditure; and

• Satisfactory audit compliance.

The performance component should not penalise the poorest or most remote villages merely because they have weaker administrative capacity. Capacity-building support should accompany performance-linked financing.

C. Scheme-Convergence Fund

The Scheme-Convergence Fund would bring together resources from eligible government schemes. Potential areas of convergence may include:

·         DAY-NRLM;

·         Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB-G RAM G);

·         Rural housing;

·         Drinking water;

·         Sanitation;

·         Agriculture and horticulture;

·         Livestock;

·         Watershed development;

·         Rural roads;

·         Social protection;

·         Skill development; and

• Other relevant State and Central Government programmes.

Convergence must remain subject to the eligibility conditions, financial rules and implementation guidelines of the concerned schemes. The VPDP should not be used to bypass scheme-specific procedures.

13. Proposed Village Development Account

Each participating Village Authority should have a designated Village Development Account or another legally approved financial arrangement.

The account should not be treated as an unrestricted general-purpose account. It should be used only for activities approved under the VPDP and sanctioned under the applicable financial framework.

13.1 Suggested Account Controls

The account may include:

·         A designated bank account;

·         Two authorised signatories;

·         Electronic payment wherever feasible;

·         Monthly bank reconciliation;

·         Expenditure tracking;

·         Payment documentation;

·         Approved estimates;

·         Work orders or implementation agreements;

·         Completion certificates;

·         Asset registers; and

• Annual financial statements.

A possible two-signatory arrangement may involve:

1.       An authorised Village Authority representative; and

2. A designated government, technical or administrative functionary.

The precise arrangement should be determined by the Finance Department and legal authorities to ensure that it does not undermine the statutory identity or customary legitimacy of the Village Authority.

14. Financial Management and Accountability

A decentralised fund-flow mechanism must be accompanied by strong financial safeguards. The following requirements are recommended.

14.1 Annual Planning

No expenditure should be permitted unless the activity is included in an approved VPDP or is subsequently approved through a formally recorded revision process.

14.2 Approved Estimates

Every infrastructure or public works activity should have:

·         A technical estimate;

·         An administrative approval;

·         A designated implementing agency;

·         A source of funds;

·         A completion timeline; and

• A monitoring arrangement.

14.3 Registers and Records

Each participating Village Authority should maintain, at minimum:

·         A cashbook or prescribed financial register;

·         A bankbook;

·         An expenditure register;

·         A voucher file;

·         An asset register;

·         A works register;

·         A beneficiary register;

·         A procurement register;

·         A meeting and resolution register;

·         A stock register, where applicable; and

• A social-audit register.

14.4 Procurement

Procurement procedures should be proportionate to the value and nature of expenditure. The guidelines should provide clear rules concerning:

·         Quotation requirements;

·         Competitive procurement;

·         Conflict of interest;

·         Local procurement;

·         Community contribution;

·         Emergency works;

·         Quality assurance; and

• Prohibition of payments without supporting documentation.

14.5 Utilisation Certificates

Utilisation certificates should be submitted according to a standard format and supported by:

·         Expenditure statements;

·         Bank statements;

·         Photographs or geo-tagged evidence where appropriate;

·         Completion certificates;

·         Beneficiary details; and

• Social-audit findings.

14.6 Social Audit

Social audit should be an integral part of the VPDP system. It should provide a platform for villagers to examine:

·         Funds received;

·         Activities approved;

·         Expenditure incurred;

·         Beneficiaries selected;

·         Assets created;

·         Quality of works;

·         Delays;

·         Complaints; and

• Corrective action.

Social audit should not replace statutory financial audit. The two serve different purposes:

·         Social audit promotes community accountability and transparency; and

• Financial audit examines compliance, financial regularity and accuracy of accounts.

14.7 Annual Financial Audit

The Village Development Account should be subject to annual audit by an authority designated under the relevant financial guidelines. The audit system should be independent, proportionate and accessible to village institutions with limited administrative capacity.

15. Role of DAY-NRLM and the BMMU

DAY-NRLM can play a critical role in operationalising the proposed framework because its institutions are already designed to facilitate community mobilisation, livelihood planning and inclusion of vulnerable households.

The BMMU may support the process by:

·         Facilitating VPRP preparation;

·         Strengthening SHGs and VLFs;

·         Ensuring participation of vulnerable households;

·         Preparing village-level resource maps;

·         Identifying livelihood and social development priorities;

·         Supporting convergence with government schemes;

·         Helping communities understand eligibility conditions;

·         Maintaining a database of village priorities;

·         Supporting capacity building of Village Authorities; and

• Facilitating monitoring and reporting.

However, DAY-NRLM institutions should not be expected to assume statutory functions that belong to the State Government, District Councils or Village Authorities. Their role should be one of community mobilisation, planning support, technical facilitation and convergence.

A clear institutional division of responsibility is therefore necessary:

Institution	Primary responsibility
SHGs and VLFs	Community mobilisation and VPRP preparation
Village Assembly/community forum	Validation and prioritisation
Village Authority	Village-level endorsement, coordination and monitoring
BMMU/Block administration	Technical appraisal and scheme convergence
Line departments	Technical sanction and scheme implementation
District Council/district institution	Consolidation and district-level coordination
State Government	Policy, financing, oversight and evaluation
Finance and audit authorities	Financial rules, audit and compliance

 

16. Comparative Constitutional and Legal Perspectives

16.1 PESA

The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 extends selected Panchayati Raj provisions to Fifth Schedule Scheduled Areas and recognises the role of Gram Sabhas in matters such as community resources, customary practices and local development.

PESA is not directly applicable to the Hill Areas of Manipur merely because the areas are inhabited by tribal communities. Its direct application depends on the constitutional and statutory status of the concerned areas. Nevertheless, PESA provides comparative lessons concerning:

·         Community participation;

·         Customary institutions;

·         Control over community resources;

·         Local development priorities; and

• The relationship between formal and customary governance.

16.2 Sixth Schedule

The Sixth Schedule provides a special constitutional framework for certain tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. It provides for Autonomous District Councils and Regional Councils with legislative, executive and financial powers.

The Sixth Schedule is not presently the direct constitutional framework for the Hill Areas of Manipur. It may nevertheless be examined comparatively for lessons concerning:

·         Autonomous institutions;

·         District-level planning;

·         Financial powers;

·         Local institutions;

·         Customary practices; and

• Inter-governmental relations.

Neither PESA nor the Sixth Schedule should be mechanically transplanted into the Manipur context. Their value lies in comparative institutional learning.

17. Proposed Legal and Administrative Instrument

To operationalise the proposed model, the Government of Manipur may consider issuing a policy instrument tentatively titled:

Manipur Hill Areas Village Participatory Development Planning and Village Development Fund Guidelines

The proposed guidelines should contain the following chapters:

1.       Short title, extent and commencement.

2.       Definitions.

3.       Objectives of the framework.

4.       Institutional structure.

5.       Role of SHGs, VLFs and DAY-NRLM institutions.

6.       Village-level consultation and planning.

7.       Preparation and approval of VPDP.

8.       Role of Village Authorities.

9.       Role of District Councils and district administration.

10.   Block-level technical appraisal.

11.   Scheme convergence.

12.   Establishment and operation of the Village Development Fund Window.

13.   Village Development Accounts.

14.   Eligible and ineligible activities.

15.   Release of funds.

16.   Procurement and implementation.

17.   Record keeping and financial management.

18.   Social audit.

19.   Financial audit.

20.   Grievance redressal.

21.   Recovery and corrective action.

22.   Capacity building.

23.   Monitoring and evaluation.

24.   Pilot implementation.

25. Review and amendment.

Before issuance, the instrument should be examined by:

·         The Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj;

·         The Department of Tribal Affairs and Hills;

·         The Finance Department;

·         The Planning Department;

·         The Law Department;

·         The relevant District Councils;

·         The State Mission Management Unit of DAY-NRLM; and

• Representatives of Village Authorities and customary institutions.

18. Proposed Pilot Programme

A pilot programme should precede statewide institutionalisation.

18.1 Pilot Selection

Pilot villages may be selected using criteria such as:

·         Presence of active SHGs and VLFs;

·         Geographical diversity;

·         Remoteness;

·         Livelihood vulnerability;

·         Administrative feasibility;

·         Willingness of the Village Authority;

·         Availability of block-level technical support; and

• Representation of different Hill-area contexts.

18.2 Pilot Stages

Stage 1: Institutional Preparation

·         Constitution of a State-level steering committee;

·         Consultation with District Councils;

·         Identification of pilot blocks and villages;

·         Preparation of guidelines;

·         Development of formats and registers; and

• Training of stakeholders.

Stage 2: Community Planning

·         VPRP preparation;

·         Village consultation;

·         Prioritisation of activities;

·         Preparation of VPDP; and

• Endorsement by the Village Authority.

Stage 3: Technical and Financial Appraisal

·         Scheme mapping;

·         Preparation of estimates;

·         Block-level appraisal;

·         District-level consolidation; and

• Financial sanction.

Stage 4: Fund Release and Implementation

·         Opening or designation of Village Development Accounts;

·         Release of funds;

·         Implementation of approved activities;

·         Technical supervision; and

• Progress reporting.

Stage 5: Accountability and Evaluation

·         Social audit;

·         Financial audit;

·         Beneficiary feedback;

·         Assessment of asset quality;

·         Review of fund utilisation; and

• Evaluation of institutional performance.

18.3 Pilot Evaluation Indicators

The pilot may be evaluated using indicators such as:

·         Percentage of villages preparing VPDPs;

·         Participation of women and vulnerable households;

·         Number of VPRP priorities integrated into VPDP;

·         Number of activities converged with government schemes;

·         Time taken for fund release;

·         Percentage of funds utilised;

·         Completion rate of approved activities;

·         Quality of assets created;

·         Number of social audits conducted;

·         Audit compliance;

·         Beneficiary satisfaction; and

• Improvement in access to services or livelihoods.

19. Critical Issues and Risks

19.1 Legal Ambiguity

The most important risk is the absence of an explicit statutory provision establishing a Village Authority Development Fund. An administrative guideline must therefore be carefully drafted so that it does not exceed the authority of the issuing government department.

19.2 Institutional Overlap

There may be overlapping responsibilities among Village Authorities, District Councils, Deputy Commissioners, BMMUs and line departments. The proposed guidelines should clearly distinguish:

·         Community priority-setting;

·         Village-level endorsement;

·         Technical appraisal;

·         Financial sanction;

·         Implementation;

·         Monitoring; and

• Audit.

19.3 Capacity Constraints

Many Village Authorities may have limited experience in formal financial management, procurement, technical planning and audit compliance. The fund-flow mechanism should therefore be accompanied by:

·         Training;

·         Standardised formats;

·         Handholding;

·         Accounting support;

·         Technical assistance; and

• Phased release of funds.

19.4 Elite Capture

Village-level institutions may face risks of elite capture, exclusion or unequal representation. Safeguards should include:

·         Public disclosure;

·         Participation of women;

·         Inclusion of vulnerable households;

·         Transparent beneficiary selection;

·         Social audit;

·         Grievance redressal; and

• Rotation or diversification of community committees where appropriate.

19.5 Scheme Fragmentation

Convergence may fail if departments continue to operate through isolated planning and reporting systems. A district-level convergence mechanism and a common village planning format are therefore necessary.

19.6 Unfunded Planning

Participatory planning can generate expectations that cannot be met if resources are not identified. Every VPDP should therefore distinguish between:

·         Activities with confirmed funding;

·         Activities proposed for convergence;

·         Activities requiring additional sanction; and

• Activities that are aspirational or long-term.

20. Policy Matrix

Policy issue	Existing position	Identified gap	Proposed response
Constitutional framework	Hill Areas excluded from ordinary Part IX Panchayat framework	GPDP cannot automatically be applied	Create Hill-specific VPDP
Village institution	Village Authorities recognised under 1956 Act	Limited statutory development-planning functions	Assign defined planning and coordination roles
District planning	District Councils have developmental functions under 1971 Act	Weak formal linkage with village-generated plans	Integrate VPDP into district planning
VPRP convergence	VPRP is community-generated under DAY-NRLM	No automatic Village Authority-level pathway	VPRP to be integrated into VPDP
Fund flow	District Council Fund exists	No automatic Village Authority Development Fund	Establish Village Development Fund Window
Financial control	General statutory and departmental systems exist	Village-level financial architecture is unclear	Create Village Development Accounts and prescribed controls
Social accountability	Community participation is possible	No uniform VPDP-linked social audit system	Institutionalise social audit
Technical support	BMMU and line departments have technical capacity	Village institutions may lack technical expertise	Maintain technical appraisal at block and department levels
Legislative precedent	2000 Act contemplated grants and plan coordination	Act was not brought into force	Use as policy precedent, not operative law
Institutional sustainability	Multiple institutions are involved	Risk of overlap and fragmentation	Issue clear guidelines and establish a steering mechanism

 

21. Recommendations

21.1 Immediate Recommendations

1. The Government of Manipur should constitute a high-level committee to examine the feasibility of a Hill-area participatory development planning framework.
2. The committee should include representatives of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Tribal Affairs and Hills, Finance, Planning, Law, District Councils, DAY-NRLM and Village Authorities.
3. The State should prepare draft Manipur Hill Areas Village Participatory Development Planning and Village Development Fund Guidelines.
4. DAY-NRLM should develop a VPRP-to-VPDP conversion format suitable for the Hill Areas.
5. Pilot villages should be selected in consultation with District Councils and Village Authorities.
6. A standard Village Development Account and financial reporting format should be developed.
7. Training should be provided to Village Authorities, SHGs, VLFs, BMMUs and block officials.

21.2 Medium-Term Recommendations

1. Establish a formula-based Basic Village Development Grant.
2. Create a convergence mechanism linking VPDPs with eligible State and Central Government schemes.
3. Establish a district-level planning and review committee.
4. Introduce digital monitoring of plan preparation, fund release and expenditure.
5. Develop a village asset register and public disclosure system.
6. Institutionalise annual social audit and financial audit.
7. Develop a grievance redressal mechanism accessible to remote villages.
8. Provide technical and accounting support to Village Authorities.

21.3 Long-Term Recommendations

1. Examine whether amendments to existing legislation are necessary to provide an explicit legal basis for village-level development planning and financing.
2. Consider whether a statutory Village Development Fund should be established.
3. Review the relationship between Village Authorities, District Councils and district administration.
4. Develop a long-term framework for fiscal decentralisation in the Hill Areas.
5. Institutionalise the VPDP process after an independent evaluation of the pilot.
6. Ensure that future legislative reforms recognise customary institutions while strengthening inclusion, accountability and democratic participation.

22. Conclusion

The Hill Areas of Manipur require a participatory development planning framework that is responsive to local needs and consistent with their constitutional and statutory position. The ordinary GPDP model cannot be applied mechanically because the Hill Areas for which District Councils exist are excluded from Part IX of the Constitution. Village Authorities are statutory village-level institutions under the 1956 Act, but their existing functions do not establish a comprehensive development-planning and financial-management system. District Councils possess important developmental and financial functions under the 1971 Act, yet the existing framework does not automatically provide direct, formula-based development grants to Village Authorities.

This legal and institutional gap should not be understood as a barrier to decentralised development. Rather, it calls for a carefully designed Hill-specific model.

The proposed Village Participatory Development Plan can provide the necessary planning bridge between VPRP and the wider development system. Under this model, SHGs and VLFs would identify priorities through VPRP; village communities would validate and rank them; Village Authorities would endorse the VPDP; block institutions would undertake technical appraisal; District Councils or district-level institutions would consolidate priorities; and the State Government would provide financing and oversight.

The proposed Village Development Fund Window would provide the financial foundation for implementation. Its design should combine predictable basic grants, plan and performance incentives, and scheme-convergence resources. Such financing must be accompanied by Village Development Accounts, prescribed financial registers, technical appraisal, utilisation certificates, social audits, financial audits and grievance redressal.

The central policy conclusion is that the absence of direct GPDP applicability does not justify the exclusion of Village Authorities from participatory development planning or public financing. Instead, the Government of Manipur should establish a constitutionally sensitive and legally defensible framework that recognises Village Authorities as village-level partners in development, District Councils as important coordinating institutions, DAY-NRLM as a community mobilisation platform, and the State Government as the principal source of policy direction, financing and oversight.

The proposed approach offers a practical pathway from community-generated priorities to accountable public expenditure:

SHGs/VLFs → VPRP → Village Consultation → Village Authority → VPDP → Block Appraisal → District/ADC Planning → State Sanction → Village Development Account → Implementation → Social Audit → Financial Audit

Such a system would strengthen community ownership, improve convergence, enhance transparency and create a more responsive development architecture for the Hill Areas of Manipur.

---

[1] MSRLM was established by the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Manipur to implement DAY-NRLM in the State on 27th January 2014, https://manipursrlm.gov.in/about-us.

[2] VPRP, initially named as Village Poverty Reduction Plan is a comprehensive, community-driven demand plan prepared by Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and their federations under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana - National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM) to help local villages reduce poverty

[3] Village Level Federation (VLF) is a Primary Federation of a number of Self Help Groups at the village level or a combination of small villages where there are less SHG.

[4] A Village Development Fund (VDF) is a specialized financial pool established to support community-driven infrastructure, public services, and economic growth at the grassroots rural level

[5] A Basic Village Development Grant shall be an untied or earmarked fund provided by Finance Commissions or state governments to local rural bodies - such as Village Authority or Village Development Boards (VDBs) - to deliver essential civic services and build grassroots infrastructure.

References

Constitution of India. (1950). Article 243M: Part not to apply to certain areas; Article 371C: Special provision with respect to the State of Manipur. Government of India. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ 

Government of India. (1996). The Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. Ministry of Panchayati Raj. https://panchayat.gov.in/ 

Government of India. (2013). The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order and related constitutional provisions concerning tribal administration. Government of India. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ 

Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India. (n.d.-a). Gram Panchayat Development Plan. https://panchayat.gov.in/en/document/gram-panchayat-development-plan/ 

Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India. (n.d.-b). People’s Plan Campaign and Gram Panchayat Development Plan resources. Government of India. https://gpdp.nic.in/ 

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. (n.d.-a). Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana–National Rural Livelihoods Mission. https://nrlm.gov.in/ 

Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. (n.d.-b). Village Prosperity Resilience Plan and community-based planning under DAY-NRLM. Government of India. https://nrlm.gov.in/ 

The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. (India Code Act No. 76 of 1971). Government of India. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/1600 

The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. (n.d.). Section 29: Functions of District Councils. Indian Kanoon. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1523562/ 

The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. (India Code Act No. 80 of 1956). Government of India. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/indiacode/handle/123456789/1600 

The Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956. (n.d.). Statutory provisions concerning Village Authorities. Indian Kanoon. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1523562/ 

The Manipur Hill Areas Autonomous District Council Act, 2000. (2000). Government of Manipur.

The Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. (1994). Government of Manipur. https://indiankanoon.org/ 

 

(The author, a District Mission Manager of the Manipur State Rural Livelihoods Mission (MSRLM), brings over a decade of field experience in rural development across both the valley and hill districts of Manipur. This article is the outcome of his professional journey, practical insights and learning experiences under MSRLM.)