Public Administration Optional (District administration since independence (Paper 2)) by Abhishiekh Saxena

Model Answer

Question #1. Mob Violence is increasingly becoming a challenge for internal Security machinery. Discuss.  10 marks (150 words)

Approach

•    Discuss mob violence.
•    Its reasons and remedial measures.

Over the past few years, there have been increasing incidents of loss of life and property due to mob violence – whether it be in Jharkhand over rumours of child kidnapping, in UP and Rajasthan by cow vigilantes, in Kashmir by violent crowds or over reservation by Jats in Haryana. Mob violence can be seen as a reflection of the displacement of responsibility by the state, which blames people for taking law into their own hands, and by citizens, who justify their actions on state inaction.
Causes for Increasing Mob Violence
•    Motivated rumours spread through social media which acts as an anonymous force multiplier.
•    Climate of impunity - Mob violence and vigilantism happens because criminals expect to get away with it. State deterrence is not perceived to be credible, especially when policemen are rendered as mere by-standers at the scene of violence.
•    General erosion of law and order situation - inadequate response to societal disorder, and its inability to aggressively prosecute those involved in vigilante killings further encourages mob violence.
•    Silence by society – People who are mute witnesses to such incidents, are just as responsible when they stay away from expressing their disapproval to such incidents for the fear of being caught in the cross-fire.
Consequences of increasing Mob Violence
•    There is deficit of justice when incidents of lynching across states happen, without those responsible being held accountable.
•    There is perversion of democracy, which confers upon the people an absolute monopoly on violence.
•    Mob Violence threatens the very existence of dignified and meaningful existence in India enshrined in one of the Fundamental rights i.e. ”Right to Life” (Art 21).
Therefore, there is need for comprehensive police reforms and efficient criminal justice delivery system which acts as a deterrence to people from resorting to mob violence in the name of justice.

Question #2. The position of the District Officer was the foundation on which British rule in India rested. Discuss. 15 marks (250 words)

Approach

• 
   Discuss the origins and significance of DC.
  
  The position of the District Officer was the foundation on which British rule in India rested. District administration by the agents of the Central Government has been a basic feature of our Governmental system since times immemorial. The Mauryan Empire was divided into a number of provinces and each province was further divided into districts. Villages were governed by village communities. The district officer was responsible to the Provincial Governor and ultimately to the Emperor. A similar arrangement prevailed under the Guptas. The District continued to be m important area of administration even under the British.

In 1772, Warren Hastings placed a district under a Collector who was a British. Two years later this arrangement was abandoned and again picked up in 1781. By 1786, the district came to occupy a central place in the scheme of local administration.
In 1829, some districts were grouped together and formed a Division which was under a Commissioner of Revenue and Circuit, This Commissioner was given powers of supervision and control over the administration of the districts. Later, districts were sub-divided into sub-divisions each under a sub-divisional officer.

One school of British administration readily accepted the theory that an oriental principle of government was that all power and authority should be concentrated in one officer at the head of each unit. Though it was not generally accepted, given the anarchy in the lath century, there seemed to be no way out but to have such an arrangement.

After the district was made the basis of administration in 1786, the Collector performed the duties of a Revenue Collector, Judge and Magistrate. The District Officer had to assess and collect the revenue, try civil and revenue cases and maintain law and order.

Lord Cornwallis was not happy with this arrangement for an officer who assessed the revenue, and had to hear complaints against that assessment. The temptation would be to justify in his judicial capacity what he had done as a Revenue Officer. Accordingly, in 1793, a new Regulation was adopted by the Governor-General-in-Council by which Collectors would not try the revenue cases any longer.

In each district, there were two important officers - Collectors for collection of Revenue and the Judge Magistrate to maintain peace, supervise police work, apprehend thieves and robbers, try them as Magistrate and functions as the Civil Judge.

In 1831, there was a further change in the duties of District officers. Until this time, Collector collected revenue, while Judge-Magistrate was to act as the Civil Judge, maintain law and order, discharge other duties of general and administer lower criminal justice. These civil judicial duties were now (1831) handed over to a separate Civil Judge while the rest of the functions of the Judge - Magistrate were entrusted to the Collector.

 The Collector now discharged all functions of the Chief Executive officer of the district including the collection of revenue, administration of lower criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. This was much too heavy a burden for the Collector especially because he did not have a well organised police force at his command nor trained assistants to help him. Lawlessness became a rife and in 1836, Lord Auckland appointed a Committee called Bird Committee (presided over by W.W. Bird) to investigate.

The Committee was of the opinion that these functions were too exacting and District Officer could not cope up with them. Since he paid more attention to revenue collection and neglected duties of general and police administration, something ought to be done. The Committee recommended that revenue functions should be placed in the hands of separate functionaries called Collectors.

This was affected and put into operation by 1845. But this division of labour did not improve the efficiency of police administration. Towards the close of 1853, change5 were again effected and there was a reunion of magisterial and revenue functions, because the separation of the offices of C~llector and Magistrate had been injurious to the character of the administration and the interests of the people. The oriental theory of government was clearly enunciated and the principle of unity of authority in District administration advocated.
In fact, there were three officers in a district, between 1838 and 1859 namely the .District Magistrate, District Collector and District Judge.

 In 1859, there was a reunion of officers of Collector and District Magistrate and henceforth they were held by one and the same officer.
Later, the British came firmly to believe that if District Magistrate could not punish the law-breakers himself, his authority would be undermined. They upheld the combination of criminal justice with executive administration.