The new ‘mask trappers’ of Mumbai

The key missing element in the Mask Penalty is that it believes in punitive action rather than education and collaboration.

We, the citizens of Mumbai are extremely thankful and grateful to Mumbai’s Municipal Commissioner’s extraordinary leadership during this Corona Pandemic. In most of the actions, they have taken citizen’s voice at the centre of decision-making and particularly while overseeing the “chase Corona” policy.

This piece is regarding the agents responsible for collecting the Mask Penalty of Rs 200. (Read about the penalty here.)

Taking strict measures to check on the spread of coronavirus, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) imposed strict rules for people travelling in public transport and visiting shopping malls in September 2020. It also announced that people who are not wearing masks will not be allowed entry inside public transport buses, taxis and rickshaws.  The BEST buses pasted ‘no mask, no entry’ stickers. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai outsourced agents responsible for collecting the Mask Penalty.

(Pic: @mybmc)

Some Observations:

1. Local governance thrives on civic engagement (i.e the municipality working along with communities to protect public values or make a change in a community). The key missing element in the Mask Penalty is that it believes in punitive action rather than education and collaboration.

2. The behavior of outsourced agents responsible for collecting the Mask Penalty has gone from bad to worse. They are keen on policing and trapping gullible people rather than educating citizens. The main aim seems to be collecting penalty. After collecting the fine, seldom is a free mask provided to the citizen.

A “mask trapper”. (Pic: Ronald Yesudhas)

3. Many of these fine collectors do not have any previous experience in voluntary work or civic engagement. The country has invested in the youth through national level programs like the NSS, NCC, Youth Red Cross, Nehru Yuva Kendra, Swami Vivekananda Youth Movement and other local youth associations. It would have been a better policy decision to involve them in the mask enforcement and citizens education drive.

4. It would be great if MCGM spells out as what educative programs / citizen engagement activities it will bring out from the penalty money collected. Right now, other than the BEST bus sticker, there is hardly any mass advertisement or material being circulated to general public.

5. Full and detailed rules on the Mask Penalty, the code of conduct for penalty collection agent, complaint and grievance redressal contact details needs to be mentioned in the MGCM official website in the main page as FAQs.

We look forward to a policy review on mask penalty and implementing “my family – my responsibility” framework. We agree that the Municipal Commissioner’s innovative leadership will promote principles of civic engagement, accountability and transparency. In closing, the MCGM has made a great deal of progress in the last year to tackle Corona pandemic, but much work remains.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Similar Story

The real estate shift: How Karnataka’s proposed apartment law shortchanges homeowners

Karnataka apartment owners may not get a fair share of their land as the KAOMA 2026 replaces value-based UDI with an area-only formula.

The Karnataka Apartment (Ownership and Management) Bill, 2026 (KAOMA) changes how a homeowner's share of the land is calculated — and the new formula gives the individual less than what the old law, that is the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 (KAOA), promised. The KAOMA Bill was passed by the Karnataka legislature in August, but is yet to receive assent from the Governor, who has sought clarifications on certain provisions. What is UDI and why does it matter? When you buy an apartment, you buy two things: The flat — a depreciating asset (buildings lose value over time). Your Undivided…

Similar Story

Big promises, unheard residents: Bengaluru’s new parking rules need a rethink

The draft rules meant to manage road space demand end up expanding supply, outsourcing enforcement, and pricing residents out of their streets.

On August 11, the Urban Development Department quietly published the draft Greater Bengaluru Authority (Parking) Rules, 2026 — the legal framework  meant to give teeth to Bengaluru's much-discussed Parking Policy 2.0. Citizens have thirty days to send in objections. Yet, few will read all eighteen pages of the notification. Fewer still will notice that a law framed as a way to curb traffic demand is, on close reading, a plan to expand parking supply and hand over enforcement to private players, while leaving the ordinary resident worse off.  That gap between the promise and what’s on paper matters, because parking…