May 15th, 2025, marks a historic yet troubling milestone in Bengaluru’s urban governance. With the Government of Karnataka implementing the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA), what could have been a moment to strengthen democratic decentralisation has instead exposed deep fault lines:
- The erosion of constitutional intent
- Structural failings in implementation
- The sidelining of local governance mechanisms
Local self-government being weakened
The failure of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to deliver effective governance has been used as the justification for enacting the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA). However, this move appears to be a deliberate effort to sideline the 74th Constitutional Amendment by shifting control of municipal governance back to the State government.
The Bill framers claim that splitting BBMP into multiple corporations will not undermine local government autonomy, as each entity will retain its powers under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act. This sounds unconvincing because:
- The BBMP’s powers to plan and budget for all city-wide major projects have been taken away, and the post of the elected metropolitan mayor of Bengaluru no longer exists.
- The mayors of the smaller municipal corporations will be powerless as the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) will even impose byelaws for their functioning.
- The constitutional provision under Article 243S has been misused to justify the creation of a state-level GBA, led by the Chief Minister and comprising ministers, MLAs, MPs, and bureaucrats from various parastatals. This move reclaims power from the BBMP, thereby weakening local self-governance.
- A member of the Brand Bangalore Committee cited Article 243S as the basis for creating the GBA, a state-level body. However, Article 243S(5) allows for additional committees only within the jurisdiction of a municipality, not at the State level.
Read more: Planning power to other civic bodies will be an obstacle to MPC
Devolution of functions incomplete
Even after 32 years of the 74th Amendment Act, the State government has devolved only four of the 18 functions listed in the 12th Schedule to BBMP. Crucial responsibilities such as urban planning, regulation of land use and water supply remain with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), along with associated funds and functionaries. BBMP can hardly be blamed if it failed to perform these functions effectively!
What has been missing is an ‘activity mapping’ of the functions between the State government and BBMP, as done under the parallel Panchayat Raj Act.
Timeline: 32 years of incomplete devolution and governance failures in Bengaluru
| 1992: 74th Constitutional Amendment (CAA) enacted | Aimed to empower Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) with 18 functions listed in the 12th Schedule. Mandated creation of Ward Committees and Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPC) |
| 1994: 74th CAA comes into force in Karnataka | Karnataka amends the KMC Act to include provisions for MPC (Section 503-B). However, BDA continues functioning in parallel, violating Article 243ZF. No devolution of most functions or creation of MPC. |
| 2005: Union Government recommends Area Sabhas | Union Government pushes for Area Sabhas to deepen citizen participation at the grassroots. Karnataka does not act. |
| 2011: Area Sabhas added to KMC Act | Karnataka amends the KMC Act to include Area Sabhas, but fails to notify them. For the next 14 years, they remained non-functional. |
| 2016: MPC constituted—22 years late (following High Court order) | Only three meetings held between 2016–2020, instead of 16 (four/year). No Draft Development Plan created. Economic development and social justice planning neglected. |
| 2011–2025: Ward committees remain toothless | Members are nominated instead of being elected. Delayed formation, no regular meetings. No powers to demand audits; demands for transparency and accountability hindered. |
| 2025: Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA) enacted | Eliminates Area Sabhas entirely. Makes ward committee decisions “advisory,” with councillors having veto power. Establishes a state-level GBA, violating the spirit of the 74th CAA. |
Read more: Bengaluru MLAs ‘bunk’ major reforms meeting, ABIDe miffed
Failure to activate MPC the reason for Bengaluru’s ‘ruin’
Was Bengaluru called a ‘ruined city’ by the Supreme Court because the BBMP failed to check the city’s unplanned, haphazard growth? Or was it the State government’s failure that it kept the constitutionally mandated MPC dysfunctional? No tangible ‘Draft Development Plan’ was prepared for achieving ‘Economic Development and Social Justice’, as per the chief function of Urban Local Self-Governments (ULSGs). So, who is to blame that only high-end ‘infrastructure’ for tunnel roads, expressways, sky-decks, etc., are being planned ad-hoc by the State government at a staggering cost of ₹1 lakh crore, neglecting all other issues?
The MPC was kept dysfunctional by disregarding Article 243ZF, which limits the validity of conflicting municipal laws to one year. Despite the MPC’s inclusion under Section 503-B of the KMC (Amendment) Act of 1994, the BDA continued planning parallely for Bengaluru, violating Article 243ZF.
12th Schedule only an indicative list
According to the architects of the GBA, the 12th Schedule did not include functions such as transportation and preservation of commons to be brought under the MPC, which resulted in a lack of coordination between the parastatals. Hence, they argued that an umbrella body like the GBA was necessary under the State government.
This is a gross misrepresentation of facts! Whilst the 12th Schedule is only an indicative list of functions, Article 243W empowers the State to add any function it deems necessary under the ULSG — “State may devolve powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, including those matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule.”
Nowhere does it say it should be “restricted to those matters listed in the 12th Schedule.”
To uphold the constitutional mandate, MPC should have been empowered to drive economic development and social justice by bringing more agencies under its purview. With entities like the BDA and BWSSB already part of the structure, establishing the MPC as the central coordinating authority was both feasible and necessary—explicitly allowed under Section 503-B(2)(b) of the KMC Act, 1994.
Had this been implemented 32 years ago, Bengaluru might have pursued a path of inclusive, planned development—and avoided being dubbed a “ruined city” by the Supreme Court.
Ambiguous role of the MPC
In the GBG Bill that was introduced in the Assembly, the MPC was totally missing. Due to public pressure, the MPC was added to the GBG Bill, but a lot of questions remain about its actual role, powers, and autonomy:
- It is supposed to cover an unspecified area larger than, but inclusive of, the GBA area now.
- Since MPC was meant to submit a ‘draft development plan’ to the State government, it was obviously meant to remain a body of the third tier. Logically, it should have been headed by the mayor of the largest city in the area.
- With two-thirds representation of elected representatives from local governments, will the MPC ever be in a position to modify or send back a plan made by a body headed by the CM, that is, the GBA?
- Given this obfuscation, it is clear that the intention is to ensure that the MPC never meets and remains a body on paper only, as has happened over three decades.
Thirty-two years after the passage of the 74th CAA, one would have hoped for an appraisal to assess its implementation, address shortcomings, and take corrective action to establish genuine ULSGs, ensuring ‘power to the people’ as envisioned in the amendment. However, the situation in Bengaluru starkly reflects the persistent lack of political will to implement the 74th CA and empower ULSGs nationwide.
In Part 2 of this series, we look into the structural, financial, and legal contradictions in the new Greater Bengaluru Governance Act.