Now that the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill (GBGB) has received the Governor’s assent and has become an Act (GBGA), its troubling provisions that overturn the 74th Constitutional Amendment (74th CAA) must be challenged. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Nagarapalika Act clearly outlines the necessity of the constitutional amendment.
It states: “In many States local bodies have become weak and ineffective on account of a variety of reasons, including the failure to hold regular elections, prolonged supersession, and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a result, Urban Local Bodies are not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-government.”
In an earlier article, we highlighted how the GBGA undermines urban local self-government — eroding constitutional intent and sidelining established local governance mechanisms.
In Part 2, we call attention to the glaring structural, financial, and legal contradictions in the Act and its likely consequences:
- The imbalance and inequities that may emerge
- Legal and financial ambiguity
- Policy incoherence
It was not BBMP that failed, but the State government
For 32 years, the State government did not empower the State Election Commission (SEC) to conduct elections regularly. Instead, it retained the authority to delimit wards and determine reservations, effectively allowing it to delay elections indefinitely, as has happened for the past four and a half years in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike.
Naturally, such delays in electing a local council lead to poor governance. The GBGA continues to usurp the SEC’s powers, depriving citizens of a well-functioning local government that can effectively respond to their needs. So, was it the BBMP that failed, or was it the State government that failed to implement the 74th CA in both letter and spirit for three decades?
Read more: Why Bengaluru’s planning process is against the spirit of our Constitution
Splitting Bengaluru will lead to unequal development
The proponents of the GBGA argue that Bengaluru has grown too large to be governed by a single corporation and one Commissioner. Hence, there is a need to split it into smaller corporations; up to seven. They have overlooked the fact that this division will make the equitable redistribution of revenues across Bengaluru impossible, as the funds from a wealthier corporation cannot be utilised in a less developed one.
Despite this concern, the split is being carried out — notwithstanding the example of the three corporations in New Delhi, which were eventually merged again due to their inability to distribute resources equitably.
State Finance Commission is only a recommendatory body
The proponents of the GBGA also argue that the State Finance Commission (SFC) will be asked to redistribute resources to address unequal development. But this will never work in practice as the SFC is only an advisory body and the State government has often disregarded its recommendations.
NCRWC recommended Zonal Councils
Effective decentralisation did not happen in the BBMP and governance was unmanageable because the State government failed to implement the recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC). The NCRWC had proposed the setting up of Zonal Councils to decentralise governance while maintaining the municipal corporation’s single identity — this would effectively address the problem of managing large cities.
Zonal Councils entail not just administrative decentralisation, as claimed, but also political decentralisation, functioning as ‘mini councils’ where zone councillors elect a chairperson from among themselves. This would have also enabled the redistribution of resources from a richer zone to a less developed zone without any problem. This provision was included in the BBMP Act of 2020 on CIVIC-Bangalore’s suggestion, but was never implemented, and has been completely removed in the GBGA. With this, unequal development cannot be redressed.
Unequal laws have been questioned in the HC
There is a case pending in the High Court (WP 17766/2021), questioning the three different laws framed for the same urban citizens in Karnataka, bringing “inequality before law” and violating Article 14 of the Constitution. These Acts are — the Karnataka Municipalities Act for smaller cities, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (KMC Act) for municipal corporations and a separate Act now for Bengaluru, with differing provisions, especially regarding ways and means of citizen participation. The court has sent notice to the government, but they have not responded. In fact, the first SFC had recommended that a unified Karnataka Urban Local Bodies Act be enacted.
While this case is pending in the HC, several citizens’ groups petitioned the governor, asking him not to give consent to the GBGB and demanding that the Bill be withdrawn. While he sent it back for clarification from the government, he ultimately gave his assent to the Bill, which has now been gazetted and made into an Act. The Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, an association of like-minded citizens, is preparing to challenge the GBGA in court.
It is also in the process of preparing an alternative ‘Shadow Master Plan’ for Bengaluru in the letter and spirit of the 74th CAA and hopes to present it to the government.