Latest news with #74thAmendment
Hindustan Times
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
India's cities deserve more than token decentralisation
The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) that came into force on June 1, 1993, promised to institutionalise democratic decentralisation in India's cities. When the Bill was presented in Parliament in 1991, the statement of objects acknowledged that many Urban Local Governments (ULGs) had become weak and ineffective due to irregular elections, prolonged supersession, and inadequate devolution of powers. India's municipal governance journey dates back to 1687 with the formation of the first municipal corporation in Madras (now Chennai). The 74th CAA promised empowered, accountable, and participatory city governments by granting them constitutional status and establishing a national governance. Over three decades later, that promise remains fulfilled more in letter than in spirit. In hindsight, the 74th Amendment addressed a historic backlog more than it offered a forward-looking blueprint. It fell short of anticipating the institutional demands of large cities in a liberalising economy. A landmark audit on the implementation of the 74th CAA across 18 states by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India found that, on average only four of the 18 (<25%) functions mandated under the Constitution have been fully devolved to ULGs. Over 60% ULGs lacked elected councils. State Finance Commissions were delayed by 412 days on average. ULGs face a 65% shortfall in per capita spending, and a 42% resource-expenditure gap. Citizen engagement in planning and budgeting is minimal, with ward committees largely defunct. Meanwhile, Union and state governments continue to dominate urban development through schemes and parastatals, bypassing elected councils; 72% of urban infrastructure is financed by Union and state governments. ULGs lack control over core functions like planning, water supply, sanitation, housing, and transport. In many cities, even Group D staff appointments require higher-level approval. ULGs have been reduced to extensions of state governments. The consequences are visible: Water shortages, crumbling streets, flooded neighbourhoods, choked roads, overcrowded transport, and a deteriorating environment. India can no longer afford a business-as-usual approach to urban governance. To change the status quo, we must move beyond token acknowledgements of the 74th Amendment's limited achievements. A reform strategy must be structured around three components: Measure, Map, and Mandate. Measure: The Union ministry of housing and urban affairs (MoHUA) lacks a comprehensive assessment of urban decentralisation. Until the CAG audits began in 2020, there was no authoritative data of the 74th Amendment implementation. In contrast, the ministry of Panchayati Raj has conducted seven assessments since the 73rd CAA and tracks panchayat performance via a Panchayat Development Index. MoHUA and state Urban Development Departments (UDDs) must build capacity to measure and monitor decentralisation in real-time, linking data to reform-oriented grants and programmes. Map: Roles and responsibilities across all levels of government and civic agencies must be clearly mapped and harmonised. States must relinquish excessive control and empower ULGs with policy, finance, knowledge and human resources. Elected councils and mayors must have democratic oversight over all agencies operating in their cities. Mandate: The Centre must initiate a second wave of constitutional reforms to strengthen the 74th CAA — closing existing loopholes and future-proofing decentralisation. This includes differentiated governance models for metros, and emerging and small cities; guaranteed devolution of functions; time-bound elections; empowered ward committees and area sabhas; and fiscal decentralisation through stable revenue streams and formula-based transfers. The amendment must specify mayoral tenures, delimitation and reservation timelines, revenue entitlements, and citizen forums definitively. The 74th Amendment was a constitutional promise. It's time we honour it. Santosh Nargund is head of participatory governance at Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy. The views expressed are personal
Time of India
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Civic groups question Greater Bengaluru Authority Act over centralisation concerns
Bengaluru: Taking objection to the haphazard manner in which the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) has been rolled out, several civic activists are contemplating legal options to prevent what they call derailment and destruction of decentralised governance in the city. At a public discussion organised by CIVIC Bangalore here Saturday, activists said they plan to file a PIL plea in this regard. In the current form, GBA will weaken local decision-making and hamper effective civic administration in Bengaluru, they claimed. On the govt's justification that GBA had to be brought in as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had failed in administering the city, CIVIC Bangalore executive trustee Kathyanai Chamaraj said: "BBMP did not fail because of internal inefficiency, it was was systematically undermined by the govt. " One of the major criticisms by experts is that the govt failed to expand Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC), a body meant to coordinate various parastatal agencies, and instead opted to create GBA, which took away crucial planning and financial powers from BBMP. This move will leave the city's smaller municipal corporations with limited authority and resources, forcing them to depend heavily on the state-controlled GBA for major projects and budgets, they said. Satyajit Arikutharam, mobility expert, spoke about the impact the bill will have on major mobility decisions: "BMLTA (Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority) Act is already in force — the problem isn't the absence of law, but the deliberate neglect of it. Mega projects like tunnel roads are being pushed through without scrutiny, undermining public transport goals and democratic oversight. We're seeing real estate interests take precedence over planning, and citizens are left paying the price. This isn't just bad governance, it is an erosion of accountability disguised as development." TR Raghunandan, former bureaucrat, said the GBA Act is being sold to people as a reform, but in reality, it's a dangerous centralisation of power. "It creates multiple urban populations without constitutional backing, ignoring the spirit of the 74th Amendment. There's no clarity on what local bodies actually do. It's all PowerPoint governance and not actual empowerment. The Act pretends to devolve power while concentrating it at the top. This is not local self-governance; it's a model of elected monarchies. If we are serious about democracy and functional devolution, we need real responsibilities at the local level, not ornamental laws that weaken it further."
Indian Express
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
New municipalities under Greater Bengaluru Authority to disrupt reservation rotations, undermine equity: Former IAS T R Raghunandan
Retired IAS officer T R Raghunandan Saturday warned that frequent delimitation and formation of new municipalities under the newly formed Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) will disrupt reservation rotations for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and women candidates. 'Their (government's) aim is to prevent rotation of reservation from proceeding logically,' he said, claiming that such tactics violate the 74th Constitutional Amendment's equity mandates. He made the remark while speaking at a seminar organised by CIVIC Bangalore on the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA). Raghunandan also urged Bengaluru to adopt the 'Manila and Brussels model', stating that decentralised municipalities with clear roles foster accountability. He, thereafter, argued that frequent delimitation creates new electoral cycles, allowing political actors to dilute the representation of marginalised groups. Raghunandan further noted that GBGA's devolution of 18 subjects is 'vague and ineffective', pointing out the lack of specific tasks for representatives. 'That means nothing,' he said, criticising the 'PowerPoint knowledge' approach that renders corporations symbolic. He stressed the need for precise role delineation to counter bureaucratic resistance and ensure functional governance. Raghunandan also flagged centralised control, with the GBA's state-appointed officials and initiatives like Smart City Private Limited bypassing elected bodies, creating 'elected monarchies'. Calling devolution a 'political battle,' Raghunandan urged engagement with ex-corporators to counter elite dominance. 'Karnataka's Panchayat Raj empowered marginalised groups through clear roles, but urban governance lags. The GBA needs to be challenged by ex-corporators' engagement to fight elite dominance. Devolution is a political battle requiring accountability to ensure Bengaluru's corporations serve all communities equitably,' he said. Kathyayini Chamaraj, Executive Trustee, CIVIC Bangalore, argued that the recently passed GBGA undermines the 74th Constitutional Amendment by centralising control under the state-led Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), headed by the chief minister. She then contended, 'The state, not BBMP, failed by delaying elections for years, weakening local self-governance and depriving citizens of responsive urban governance.' 'Splitting BBMP into seven corporations hinders equitable resource distribution, ignoring Delhi's re-merger lesson. The state's failure to activate the Metropolitan Planning Committee caused Bengaluru's 'ruined' growth, violating the 74th Amendment's mandate for vibrant local self-governance,' Chamaraj said.
Deccan Herald
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
Greater Bengaluru Bill: BJP to fight legally, says Ashoka
'We had asked the Governor not to approve the Bill as it violated the 74th Amendment. We will fight the law legally,' Ashoka said.
Hans India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Citizens' Groups Raise Alarm Over Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, Mull Legal Challenge
Bengaluru: The passage of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024, into law has triggered a wave of concern and resistance among citizen groups and civil society organisations in the city. The Bengaluru Town Hall movement, a prominent pressure group advocating for transparent and decentralised governance, has voiced strong objections, citing violations of constitutional principles and procedural lapses. In a statement issued on Thursday, the group expressed dismay over the Governor's assent to the bill, stating that the law has been enacted 'despite strong objections from citizens and civil groups,' and that its provisions undermine the very spirit of democratic decentralisation enshrined in the Constitution. 'The objections were very serious, especially about violations of the Constitution and lack of due process, and lack of public consultation,' the statement read. 'This law goes against the spirit and letter of the 74th Amendment/Nagarpalika Act 1992, which is the very essence of our democracy.' The 74th Constitutional Amendment, passed in 1992, is widely regarded as a cornerstone of urban democratic governance in India. It mandates the creation of elected municipal bodies and devolution of powers, functions, and finances to urban local governments. Critics of the new Bengaluru legislation argue that it centralises authority, reduces the role of elected representatives, and gives greater control to the state government and bureaucracy. The Bengaluru Town Hall movement, comprising civic activists, urban planners, legal professionals, and residents' welfare associations, has announced that it is actively studying legal options to challenge the newly enacted law. A team is being constituted to explore the viability of a legal recourse. 'We are constituting a team to pursue this. We shall announce our plans shortly,' said Sandeep Anirudhan and Prakash Belawadi in a press release issued today by the BTH. The Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024, was introduced by the state government with the stated aim of streamlining administration and improving service delivery in the rapidly growing metropolitan area. However, activists contend that the process of drafting and passing the bill lacked adequate public consultation and transparency. 'Any change of this scale to the governance structure of a city like Bengaluru must be subject to wide-ranging consultations, involving citizens, local representatives, and experts,' said a senior member of the Town Hall movement, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'Instead, the bill was rushed through without hearing the voices of the people who live and work in this city.' Legal scholars and constitutional experts have also weighed in, with some raising red flags about the bill's compatibility with the framework laid down by the 74th Amendment. If a legal challenge is mounted, the outcome could have far-reaching implications not just for Bengaluru but for urban governance models across India. Meanwhile, civic activists are calling for increased public awareness and mobilisation to resist what they describe as 'an erosion of local self-governance.' Discussions are also underway for a citywide campaign to educate citizens about the impact of the new law on urban democracy. As Bengaluru continues to grapple with complex urban challenges — from mobility and housing to waste management and water supply — the controversy over the governance bill has sharpened the debate around who truly governs the city, and how.
