Planning in India - Five-Year Plans, Planning Commission, NITI Aayog, Centralized vs Decentralized Planning, and Recent Developments
India's planning story is not only about "Five-Year Plans". It is also about how the Indian State tried to solve a real problem after Independence: limited money, weak industry, low farm productivity, poverty, and huge development gaps across regions.
In the early decades, India followed state-led planning with Five-Year Plans, prepared mainly by the Planning Commission. Over time, India's economy became more open and market-driven. Planning also changed from "command and control" to "guidance, coordination, and monitoring". This is why the Planning Commission was replaced by NITI Aayog in 2015.
Economic Planning (Core Definition)
Economic planning means a deliberate and systematic effort by the government to decide priorities, allocate resources, set targets, and coordinate policies to achieve development goals (growth, jobs, poverty reduction, infrastructure, social justice).
1) Introduction to Economic Planning in India
1.1 Why do countries plan?
🎯 Why Do Countries Plan? – Five Key Reasons
- Scarcity of resources: When needs are huge but money and capacity are limited, the State must prioritise.
- Balanced growth: Markets may concentrate investment in already-developed regions.
- Public goods and infrastructure: Roads, irrigation, power, schools, health systems need coordination and long-term funding.
- Social justice: Reducing poverty, inequality, and providing basic services need targeted action.
- Structural transformation: Moving from an agriculture-heavy economy to higher productivity industry and services needs a strategy.
1.2 Types of planning (UPSC-ready)
📋 Types of Economic Planning – UPSC Framework
- Directive vs Indicative planning
- Centralized vs Decentralized planning
- Perspective planning vs Medium-term planning (long-term vision vs 5-year programmes)
- Rolling planning (annual revisions) vs fixed plan targets
Directive Planning vs Indicative Planning
Directive planning uses direct state control (licenses, quotas, state ownership) to decide what and how much to produce. Indicative planning uses targets, incentives, and policy signals to guide the economy, while production decisions are largely taken by private firms and markets.
Centralized vs Decentralized Planning
Centralized planning concentrates major decisions at the national level. Decentralized planning shifts planning responsibilities to States, districts, and local bodies, so local needs shape priorities and budgets.
2) Roots of Planning Before 1950
Even before Independence, India saw planning ideas through multiple proposals. A government compilation notes early efforts such as the National Planning Committee (1938), the Bombay Plan (1944), the Gandhian Plan (1944), the People's Plan (1945), and the Sarvodaya Plan (1950).
📜 Pre-Independence Planning Proposals – Timeline
Bombay Plan and Other Pre-Independence Plans
The Bombay Plan (1944) was a development proposal by leading industrialists. Along with other plans, it shows that India's planning debate included both industry-led growth and village-centred development even before 1950.
3) Planning Commission (1950–2014): Establishment, Composition, Functions
3.1 Establishment (1950)
The Planning Commission was established in March 1950 by a Government of India resolution, with the Prime Minister as Chairperson.
🏛️ Planning Commission (1950–2014) – Key Facts
Planning Commission (What it was)
The Planning Commission was a central institution that prepared India's Five-Year Plans and coordinated development priorities. It assessed resources, formulated plans, set priorities, and guided implementation.
3.2 Key functions (as used in Indian planning practice)
A PIB note summarises the Planning Commission's assigned roles as: assessing and allocating plan resources, formulating plans and programmes, deciding the implementation methodology, identifying resource constraints, and appraising/adjusting implementation.
3.3 Achievements (broad UPSC view)
- Institution-building: Support for creation and expansion of key national institutions (education, research, infrastructure).
- Green Revolution support: Policies and investments that improved food security in later decades.
- Public sector capacity: Heavy industries, energy, transport, and basic industrial base in early decades.
- Social sector focus over time: Anti-poverty programmes, basic needs approach, and inclusion-focused plans (especially later plans).
3.4 Limitations (why reforms became necessary)
- Top-down approach: Often criticised for "one-size-fits-all" targets across diverse States.
- Weak last-mile implementation: Planning quality does not automatically convert into outcomes.
- Plan vs non-plan split: Budgeting and accountability became complicated due to separate classifications.
- Changed economy: After 1991 reforms, the private sector and global integration increased, needing a different planning style.
4) Five-Year Plans (1951–2017): Evolution, Focus, Achievements, Shortcomings
4.1 What is a Five-Year Plan?
A Five-Year Plan is a medium-term development framework that sets priorities, targets, and resource allocations for approximately five years. India launched the first plan in 1951 and continued up to the Twelfth Plan (2012–2017).
Five-Year Plan
A Five-Year Plan is a medium-term programme where the government sets development priorities, estimates resources, and fixes broad targets (growth, sectoral expansion, poverty reduction, infrastructure, social outcomes).
4.2 Comprehensive table: All Five-Year Plans (1st to 12th)
Note for UPSC accuracy: Growth targets and realised outcomes can vary across sources depending on the GDP series and definitions used. The target/actual figures for Plans 1–11 below follow a Government of India statistical compilation. For the Twelfth Plan, the target was approved at 8%, and an appraisal noted likely achievement around 7%.
📊 Five-Year Plans (1951–2017) – Key Milestones
| Plan | Period | Main Focus (Exam Keywords) | Target Growth (%) | Achieved/Realised Growth (%) | Major Achievements | Major Shortcomings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 1951–56 | Agriculture, irrigation, price stability | 2.1 | 3.6 | Strong agricultural push; irrigation and basic infrastructure momentum | Heavy dependence on good monsoon; limited industrial expansion |
| 2nd | 1956–61 | Heavy industry, public sector, Mahalanobis strategy | 4.5 | 4.3 | Industrial base strengthened; big projects and PSUs expanded | Forex crisis; inflation and import dependence pressures |
| 3rd | 1961–66 | Self-reliance, agriculture + industry balance | 5.6 | 2.8 | Some foundation for later agricultural strategy | Wars (1962, 1965) + drought; major target failure |
| Plan Holiday (Annual Plans) | 1966–69 | Stabilisation, agriculture focus | — | — | Shift to new agricultural strategy (HYV seeds etc.) | Short-term crisis management, not long-term planning |
| 4th | 1969–74 | Growth with stability, self-reliance, regional balance | 5.7 | 3.3 | Green Revolution expansion; stronger bank credit systems (nationalisation context) | Poor monsoon years; inflation and refugee pressures |
| 5th | 1974–79 | Garibi Hatao, poverty removal, basic needs | 4.4 | 4.8 | Stronger poverty and employment focus; Minimum Needs approach | Oil shock inflation; political change led to termination |
| Rolling Plan | 1978–80 | Flexibility, annual revisions | — | — | Adaptable approach attempted | Instability; frequent revisions reduced predictability |
| 6th | 1980–85 | Modernisation, poverty reduction, technology | 5.2 | 5.7 | Better growth momentum; programmes for employment/skills | Fiscal stress; uneven outcomes across regions |
| 7th | 1985–90 | Food, work, productivity; technology push | 5.0 | 6.0 | Higher growth; productivity orientation | Macroeconomic imbalances built up toward 1991 crisis |
| Annual Plans | 1990–92 | Crisis management; start of reforms | — | — | Transition to LPG reforms | Political instability and BoP crisis |
| 8th | 1992–97 | Reforms era, human development, infrastructure | 5.6 | 6.8 | Higher growth; reforms stabilised economy and expanded opportunities | Rising inequality concerns; uneven sectoral outcomes |
| 9th | 1997–2002 | Growth with social justice; human development | 6.5 | 5.4 | Social sector emphasis; continued reforms | Slower growth; fiscal and structural constraints |
| 10th | 2002–07 | Inclusive growth; monitorable targets | 8.0 | 7.6 | Strong growth; poverty reduction momentum in many areas | Job quality and regional disparities remained |
| 11th | 2007–12 | Faster & more inclusive growth | 9.0 | 8.0 | Higher social spending; outcomes focus strengthened | Global crises (2008, 2011); inflation and slowdown pressures |
| 12th | 2012–17 | Faster, more inclusive & sustainable growth | 8.0 (approved) | ~7.0 (likely, appraisal) | Infrastructure + skills + sustainability focus; outcome orientation | Lower-than-target growth; investment slowdown and global headwinds |
Mahalanobis Strategy (2nd Plan)
The Mahalanobis model prioritised building capacity in heavy and capital goods industries so that India could grow faster in the long run with greater self-reliance.
Plan Holiday
Plan Holiday refers to years when the normal Five-Year Plan cycle was paused and replaced by Annual Plans (notably 1966–69 and 1990–92) because of major economic and political shocks.
Rolling Plan
A Rolling Plan is a flexible approach where plan targets and allocations are revised every year based on performance and changing conditions. India experimented with this in 1978–80.
4.3 Plan-wise explanation (1st to 12th) with focus, achievements, shortcomings
First Five-Year Plan (1951–56)
- Context: Refugee rehabilitation, food shortage, inflation pressures.
- Focus: Agriculture, irrigation, price stability, power, transport.
- Outcome: Target 2.1%, actual 3.6%.
- Big takeaway: Early success was strongly linked to good harvests and urgent focus on food and irrigation.
Second Five-Year Plan (1956–61)
- Focus shift: From agriculture-first to heavy industry and public sector expansion.
- Model: Mahalanobis approach.
- Outcome: Target 4.5%, actual 4.3%.
- Issue: Foreign exchange shortages and inflation pressures due to large imports for industrialisation.
Third Five-Year Plan (1961–66)
- Goal: Self-reliant and self-generating economy.
- Priority: Agriculture got top priority to support industry and exports.
- Outcome: Target 5.6%, actual 2.8%.
- Reason for failure: 1962 war, 1965 war, severe drought (1965–66).
Plan Holidays / Annual Plans (1966–69)
- Why: After the failure of the Third Plan, India needed stabilisation and immediate food security.
- Key change: New agricultural strategy using HYV seeds, fertilisers, irrigation expansion.
Fourth Five-Year Plan (1969–74)
- Core idea: Growth with stability and self-reliance; greater regional balance.
- Outcome: Target 5.7%, actual 3.3%.
- Constraints: Supply issues, inflation, refugee pressures, and monsoon variability.
Gadgil Formula
The Gadgil Formula was used as a structured method to distribute plan assistance among States with the idea of balancing development and reducing regional inequalities (often discussed in context of later plans and Centre-State resource allocation debates).
Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974–79)
- Theme: Poverty removal (Garibi Hatao) and self-reliance.
- Outcome: Target 4.4%, actual 4.8%.
- Major issue: High inflation and oil shock; political change led to termination.
Minimum Needs Programme (MNP)
Minimum Needs Programme reflects the idea that the State must ensure basic public services (health, education, water, housing, roads) so that growth becomes meaningful for ordinary people.
Rolling Plan (1978–80)
- What it tried: Annual review and course correction.
- Problem: Political instability made long-term commitment difficult.
Sixth Five-Year Plan (1980–85)
- Focus: Growth, technology modernisation, poverty reduction, employment schemes.
- Outcome: Target 5.2%, actual 5.7%.
Seventh Five-Year Plan (1985–90)
- Focus: Food, work, productivity; technology-driven productivity.
- Outcome: Target 5.0%, actual 6.0%.
- Hidden problem: Rising macroeconomic imbalances in late 1980s contributed to 1991 crisis conditions.
Annual Plans (1990–92)
- Why: Political instability and balance of payments crisis; transition to economic reforms.
Eighth Five-Year Plan (1992–97)
- Context: Post-1991 reforms and stabilisation.
- Focus: Human development + infrastructure + efficiency + market orientation.
- Outcome: Target 5.6%, actual 6.8%.
LPG Reforms
LPG stands for Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation. It refers to the shift after 1991 toward a more market-driven economy, greater private sector role, and deeper global integration.
Ninth Five-Year Plan (1997–2002)
- Theme: Growth with social justice and equality.
- Outcome: Target 6.5%, actual 5.4%.
- Challenge: Slower growth highlighted structural bottlenecks and the need for stronger reforms and implementation.
Tenth Five-Year Plan (2002–07)
- Shift: Growth + monitorable social targets (education, health, water, poverty etc.).
- Outcome: Target 8.0%, actual 7.6%.
Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2007–12)
- Vision: Faster and more inclusive growth.
- Outcome: Target 9.0%, actual 8.0%.
- Major shock: Global financial crisis (2008) and later slowdown period; still achieved 8% which was considered relatively strong in that context.
Twelfth Five-Year Plan (2012–17)
- Theme: Faster, more inclusive and sustainable growth.
- Target: Approved at 8% (revised down from 9%).
- Likely achievement: A NITI Aayog appraisal excerpt indicated the plan would likely achieve around 7% given the growth in early years and global headwinds.
5) End of Planning Commission Era: Why was it Discontinued?
India moved away from the Planning Commission model because the economy and governance needs changed:
- More market-driven economy: The private sector became central in production and investment decisions.
- Need for cooperative federalism: States demanded greater participation in national policy priorities.
- Implementation focus: Outcome delivery, monitoring, and evidence-based policy became more important than only drafting plans.
- Flexibility: A fixed five-year framework can struggle when shocks occur (global crises, commodity price shocks, pandemics, etc.).
NITI Aayog was formed via a Union Cabinet resolution on 1 January 2015, and the planning process transitioned toward new policy documents and cooperative mechanisms rather than rigid Five-Year Plans.
6) NITI Aayog (2015 onwards): Establishment, Composition, Functions, Initiatives
6.1 Establishment (2015)
NITI Aayog was formed via a Union Cabinet resolution on 1 January 2015.
NITI Aayog (Exam Definition)
NITI Aayog is the apex public policy think tank of the Government of India, designed to promote cooperative federalism, policy innovation, and outcome-focused development by involving States more actively.
🏛️ NITI Aayog – Structure & Key Bodies
- PM as Chairperson
- All Chief Ministers
- Lt Governors of UTs
- Key platform for cooperative federalism
- Formed for specific issues
- Addresses multi-state concerns
- Regional coordination
- Problem-solving focus
- Vice Chairperson
- Full-time Members
- CEO (Secretary rank)
- Secretariat support
6.2 Composition and key bodies
- Governing Council: Prime Minister + Chief Ministers of States and UTs with legislature + Lt Governors of other UTs; it is a platform for shared national priorities.
- Regional Councils: Formed for specific issues affecting multiple States/regions (used for coordination and problem-solving).
- Full-time and administrative structure: Includes Vice Chairperson, Members, CEO, and Secretariat (institutional design visible on NITI's organisational structure pages).
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative federalism means Centre and States jointly design priorities and implement development goals through consultation, coordination, and shared ownership. NITI's Governing Council is explicitly designed as a platform for this.
6.3 Core functions (practical UPSC framing)
- Policy think tank role: Provide research-based policy inputs and strategies.
- Centre–State coordination: Common platform to discuss national priorities and state concerns.
- Monitoring and evaluation: Move toward outcome-based monitoring (e.g., SDG Index, dashboard approaches).
- Best practices and competition: Encourage competitive federalism using rankings and dashboards.
6.4 Key initiatives
A) Aspirational Districts Programme (ADP)
NITI Aayog's ADP ranks districts based on incremental progress across 49 KPIs under five themes: Health & Nutrition, Education, Agriculture & Water Resources, Financial Inclusion & Skill Development, and Infrastructure.
Aspirational Districts Programme (ADP)
ADP is a data-driven programme where districts are ranked based on incremental improvement across key human development themes and monitored regularly to push fast improvements in lagging regions.
B) Atal Innovation Mission (AIM)
Atal Innovation Mission is a flagship initiative of NITI Aayog set up in 2016 to promote a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.
Atal Innovation Mission (AIM)
AIM promotes innovation and entrepreneurship in India. It aims to build an innovation mindset in schools and strengthen the startup ecosystem through platforms like Atal Tinkering Labs and incubation support.
7) Planning Commission vs NITI Aayog: Detailed Comparison
⚖️ Planning Commission vs NITI Aayog – Key Differences
| Aspect | Planning Commission | NITI Aayog |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Central planning body that prepared Five-Year Plans | Policy think tank, strategy and coordination body |
| Establishment | March 1950 (GoI resolution) | 1 January 2015 (Union Cabinet resolution) |
| Approach | More top-down planning and target setting | More cooperative and consultative, bottom-up emphasis through States |
| Federalism lens | Often associated with "bargaining" style plan assistance | Explicitly built around cooperative federalism platform |
| Primary outputs | Five-Year Plans; plan outlays and programmes | Action agendas, strategy documents, dashboards, evaluations; issue-focused working groups |
| Institutional forum | National Development Council used for plan approval (historical practice) | Governing Council as main forum for shared vision and national priorities |
Previous Year Question (UPSC 2018)
Q: How are the principles followed by NITI Aayog different from those followed by the erstwhile Planning Commission in India?
Answer: Planning Commission followed a more centralized, plan-target and plan-allocation style, closely linked with Five-Year Plans. NITI Aayog focuses more on policy inputs, outcome monitoring, cooperative federalism, and flexibility through action agendas and real-time data systems. A good UPSC answer should compare approach (top-down vs consultative), role (allocator vs think tank), and federalism impact (bargaining vs cooperative/competitive).
8) Centralized vs Decentralized Planning: Meaning, Comparison, Constitutional Provisions
8.1 Why decentralize planning?
- Local needs differ: A drought-prone district and an urban industrial district need different priorities.
- Better targeting: Local bodies know beneficiaries, assets, and gaps better.
- Stronger accountability: Citizens can monitor works more directly.
🏛️ Centralized vs Decentralized Planning
8.2 Constitutional push: 73rd and 74th Amendments
The constitutional design after the 73rd and 74th amendments encourages planning and implementation at local levels through Panchayats and Municipalities. A PIB note explains that under Article 243G, States endow Panchayats with powers to function as institutions of self-government and to plan and implement schemes for economic development and social justice.
8.3 District Planning Committees (DPCs)
Article 243ZD requires District Planning Committees to consolidate plans prepared by Panchayats and Municipalities and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole.
District Planning Committee (DPC)
A DPC consolidates rural (Panchayat) and urban (Municipality) plans in a district and prepares a draft district development plan for integrated development.
8.4 Centralized vs Decentralized Planning (comparison table)
| Point | Centralized Planning | Decentralized Planning |
|---|---|---|
| Decision level | National/State headquarters decide priorities | District/local bodies shape priorities based on local needs |
| Strength | National coordination, scale, uniform standards | Local relevance, better targeting, participation |
| Weakness | One-size-fits-all risk; slower feedback | Capacity gaps at local level; uneven quality |
| Constitutional tools | Union/State executive planning mechanisms | 73rd/74th amendments; DPCs (243ZD); Panchayat powers (243G) |
| UPSC angle | Good for national missions, infrastructure corridors | Essential for inclusive growth and last-mile delivery |
9) Role of Finance Commission vs Planning Commission / NITI Aayog
9.1 Finance Commission (Constitutional role)
The Finance Commission is a constitutional body constituted by the President (normally every five years). Its duty is to recommend:
- Distribution of net proceeds of taxes between Union and States and among States.
- Principles for grants-in-aid out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
- Other matters referred by the President.
This is laid out in constitutional provisions hosted on the Finance Commission's official portal.
Finance Commission (UPSC Definition)
The Finance Commission is a constitutional commission (Article 280 framework) that recommends tax devolution and grants-in-aid to ensure balanced fiscal relations between Centre and States.
9.2 How Planning Commission and Finance Commission differed (classic UPSC framing)
- Finance Commission: Constitutional, rule-based tax sharing and grants (more formula-driven).
- Planning Commission: Managed plan resources and plan assistance; linked with Five-Year Plans and plan priorities.
- NITI Aayog: More of a think tank/coordination platform; does not function as a classic plan-fund allocator in the old way.
9.3 Finance Commission vs Planning Body (comparison table)
| Aspect | Finance Commission | Planning Commission / NITI Aayog |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional status | Constitutional (Article 280 framework) | Planning Commission: executive resolution body; NITI: Cabinet resolution |
| Main role | Tax devolution + grants-in-aid recommendations | Planning: set development priorities, plans, programmes; NITI: policy inputs and coordination |
| Frequency | Normally every five years | Continuous policy process; Five-Year Plans ended after 2017 |
| Focus | Fiscal federalism and resource distribution | Development strategy and implementation coordination |
Previous Year Question (UPSC 2018)
Q: How is the Finance Commission of India constituted? What do you know about the terms of reference of the Finance Commission?
Answer: The Finance Commission is constituted by the President under the constitutional framework (Article 280 system) and is normally set up every five years. Its terms broadly include recommending the distribution of net proceeds of taxes between Centre and States and among States, and principles governing grants-in-aid of State revenues from the Consolidated Fund of India. A strong answer should also explain why FC matters for fiscal federalism and balanced development.
10) Recent Developments: Vision Documents, India@2047, and Cooperative Federalism in Practice
10.1 New planning style after Five-Year Plans
After the Planning Commission era, NITI Aayog moved toward a set of policy documents and frameworks. NITI's Governing Council meeting notes mention a 15-year vision accompanied by a 7-year strategy and a 3-year action agenda presented in 2017.
Post-Five-Year Plan Framework
Instead of rigid Five-Year Plans, India's planning now uses vision documents, medium-term strategies, and short-term action agendas to remain flexible while still guiding national priorities.
10.2 Strategy for New India @75 (2019) and outcome focus
NITI Aayog's "Strategy for New India @ 75" emphasises governance, implementation, modernisation, technology, and cooperative centre–state work to achieve national goals.
10.3 Viksit Bharat @2047 and India's long-term vision
NITI Aayog's Governing Council meetings have explicitly used the theme Viksit Rajya for Viksit Bharat@2047, reflecting a long-term national development agenda with strong State participation.
NITI Aayog has also hosted a working paper titled "India's Path to Global Leadership: Strategic Imperatives for Viksit Bharat @2047" (April 2025), which signals the increasing role of research-backed long-term visioning in place of rigid five-year planning cycles.
India@2047 / Viksit Bharat @2047
India@2047 broadly refers to India's long-term development vision for the centenary of Independence, built around higher income, inclusion, sustainability, strong institutions, and improved quality of life. NITI's forums increasingly link State strategies to this national vision.
11) SDG India Index and Sustainable Development Monitoring
11.1 Why SDG monitoring matters for planning
- Planning is not only about GDP growth. It is also about human development, environment, and institutional quality.
- SDG monitoring provides a scoreboard for outcomes like health, education, sanitation, clean energy, gender equality, climate action, etc.
11.2 SDG India Index (NITI Aayog)
A PIB release (July 2024) notes that India's overall SDG score improved from 57 (2018) to 66 (2020–21) to 71 (2023–24).
📊 SDG India Index – Score Progress
The same release also explains the "Front Runner" category as a score between 65–99. UN India's SDG Index note (2019) presents the common categorisation: Aspirant (0–49), Performer (50–64), Front Runner (65–99), Achiever (100).
SDG India Index
The SDG India Index is a tool to measure progress of States/UTs on SDG goals using a 0–100 scale, encouraging competition + cooperation to improve outcomes.
11.3 Sustainable development monitoring beyond NITI
MoSPI also works on the national SDG monitoring architecture and publishes progress reporting on indicators, helping ensure that planning and budgeting can be linked with measurable development outcomes.
12) Challenges and Way Forward
🎯 Planning in India – Challenges & Way Forward
12.1 Key challenges (current planning realities)
- Centre–State coordination gaps: Many programmes need smooth alignment across departments and levels of government.
- Capacity at district/local levels: Decentralization works only if DPCs and local bodies have technical and financial capacity.
- Data quality and real-time monitoring: Rankings and dashboards are only as good as the data fed into them.
- Regional inequality: Faster growth does not automatically reduce gaps; targeted support is still required.
- Employment challenge: Planning must link growth with job creation and skilling.
- Climate and sustainability: Development now must be consistent with environmental constraints and SDG commitments.
12.2 Way forward (UPSC Mains-ready points)
- Strengthen State planning capacity: Better state-level vision documents aligned with national priorities.
- Make decentralization functional: DPCs should meet regularly and produce integrated district plans; local bodies need trained planning staff.
- Outcome budgeting: Link funds with measurable outcomes (education, health, nutrition, sanitation, water security, climate resilience).
- Use evidence and pilots: Scale what works; stop ineffective spending quickly.
- Strengthen cooperative federalism: Use Governing Council and regional councils to resolve implementation bottlenecks and share best practices.
- SDG alignment: Use SDG Index insights to identify weak goals and design targeted interventions.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
Q1. The Planning Commission of India was established in:
a) 1947
b) 1950
c) 1952
d) 1962
Answer: b) 1950. Explanation: It was established in March 1950 by a Government of India resolution.
Q2. NITI Aayog was formed via a resolution of the Union Cabinet on:
a) 26 January 2015
b) 15 August 2014
c) 1 January 2015
d) 2 October 2014
Answer: c) 1 January 2015. Explanation: NITI Aayog was formed via a Union Cabinet resolution on 1 January 2015.
Q3. Which body comprises the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers of States, and Lt Governors of UTs to evolve a shared vision of national priorities under NITI Aayog?
a) National Development Council
b) Governing Council
c) Finance Commission
d) Inter-State Council
Answer: b) Governing Council. Explanation: Governing Council is designed as the premier platform for cooperative federalism and shared priorities.
Q4. District Planning Committees (DPCs) are required to consolidate Panchayat and Municipal plans under which constitutional provision (as referenced in official notes)?
a) Article 243G
b) Article 243ZD
c) Article 280
d) Article 324
Answer: b) Article 243ZD. Explanation: Article 243ZD requires DPCs to consolidate plans and prepare a draft district development plan.
Q5. The Finance Commission primarily recommends:
a) Union Cabinet formation rules
b) Distribution of net proceeds of taxes and grants-in-aid principles
c) Election schedule for Panchayats
d) Criminal law reforms
Answer: b) Distribution of net proceeds of taxes and grants-in-aid principles. Explanation: This is a core constitutional duty under the Finance Commission framework.
Q6. According to a NITI Aayog programme description, the Aspirational Districts Programme rankings are based on incremental progress across:
a) 25 indicators under 3 themes
b) 49 KPIs under 5 themes
c) 100 KPIs under 10 themes
d) 12 goals under 12 themes
Answer: b) 49 KPIs under 5 themes. Explanation: The ADP ranks districts based on incremental progress across 49 KPIs under five themes.
Q7. India's overall SDG score in the SDG India Index 2023–24 was reported as:
a) 57
b) 66
c) 71
d) 79
Answer: c) 71. Explanation: PIB release noted India's overall SDG score as 71 for 2023–24.
Q8. The approved growth target for the Twelfth Five-Year Plan was set at:
a) 6%
b) 7%
c) 8%
d) 9%
Answer: c) 8%. Explanation: The Twelfth Plan's target was revised and approved at 8% (down from 9%).