He asked the government to address the concerns of the citizens, including an alleged violation of the 74th constitutional amendment, the role of the Metropolitan Planning Committee, the powers of corporators, etc.
Published Mar 27, 2025 | 3:00 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 27, 2025 | 3:43 PM
An aerial shot over the Bengaluru silk board and bridges over roads in the city. (iStock)
Synopsis: Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot returned the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024, passed by the Congress government, seeking clarifications. The Governor mentioned the concerns raised by a citizens group, the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, over the passing of the Bill. He mentioned that he wanted the concerns addressed since they are of legal and public interest.
Karnataka Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot, on Wednesday, 26 March, returned the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024, passed by the Congress government, seeking more clarifications.
In a letter to the state government, the Governor mentioned the concerns raised by a citizens group, the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, over the passing of the Bill.
He asked the government to address the concerns of the citizens, including an alleged violation of the 74th constitutional amendment, the role of the Metropolitan Planning Committee, the powers of corporators, etc.
The letter also mentioned citizens’ concerns over bigger projects proposed to be implemented in the city including tunnel road, sky deck and expressway projects.
The Governor advised the government to uphold democratic principles, prevent unnecessary bureaucracy, preserve cultural and demographic integrity and ensure equitable financial management. Gehlot mentioned that he wanted the concerns addressed since they are of legal and public interest.
The Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill aims to divide the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) into seven city corporations and have a Greater Bengaluru Authority over these corporations.
Meanwhile, amidst the development over the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, there are no signs of the conduct of the long-overdue BBMP elections. The Congress had promised to conduct BBMP elections after coming to power, but they have not taken a proactive approach towards conducting these elections, even after being in power for two years.
The BBMP elections have been delayed for five years, even after a change in government. Citizens have raised concern that the new Bill will further delay BBMP elections for a year or even more.
The term of the BBMP council ended on 10 September 2020 when the BJP was in power and BS Yediyurappa was the chief minister. The Congress, then the Opposition, was at loggerheads with the BJP over the delay in conducting the BBMP elections.
Sandeep Anirudhan, an activist who is part of the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, said, “We opposed this draconian bill, which will completely disempower citizens of Bengaluru and lead to further ruin. Look at the condition of the roads in the city. Even the basic infrastructure is not in place. BBMP elections are delayed and the government is trying to bring the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill. When can we expect the city representatives to put infrastructure in place.”
Taking a dig at the Congress government, BJP MLA CK Ramamurthy told South First, “BJP is against the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill. We even walked out of the Assembly and Council as a sign to oppose the passing of the Bill. One of the main reasons to oppose this Bill is the violation of the 74th Amendment Act of the Indian Constitution which emphasises the decentralisation of powers and authorities of urban local bodies. There are three levels of government including Central, State and Panchayat or Municipal Corporation.”
The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, provides for the decentralisation of power through establishment of Municipalities or Urban Local Government and gives them a constitutional entity.
It mandates democratic decentralisation at the grassroots level in urban areas. It empowers ULBs to perform 18 functions listed under the 12th schedule. It provides for the constitution of different types of municipalities, including Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils, and Municipal Corporations, depending on the size of the city.
Ramamurthy further questioned whether the state government was trying to have direct control over the BBMP by passing the Bill.
“Do Mumbai or Delhi have multiple mayors? When these cities have only one mayor, why do we need multiple mayors? If they divide the city into seven corporations, there are higher chances of non-Kannadigas becoming mayors especially in the East part of the city. Then there will be language barriers and lack of cooperation between various stakeholders,” he said.
“According to my estimates, the revenue is higher in Bengaluru East and it would lead to unequal revenue and development. While one part of the city will see better development, other parts suffer.”
He asked if it was constitutionally right to have two chief ministers in the state.
“When there can only be one chief minister, why should it be different for the mayor of the city? Let the government appoint separate commissioners and chief commissioners to seven zones of the city under one mayor and a deputy mayor. Even when the BBMP election case hearing is still pending in the Supreme Court, they have gone ahead to form and even pass this bill,” Ramamurthy said.
In February, the BJP had filed a petition in the Supreme Court demanding immediate elections to the BBMP and alleged the state government was purposely delaying it.
“We had submitted a letter to the Governor to reject the Bill. But he has sent it back to the government seeking more clarification. We will wait and watch the next move,” he said.
However, the Congress denied the allegations raised by the Opposition that the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill was passed to snatch the power of the mayor and hand it over to the MLAs of the city. It also denied that the Bill violated the 74th Constitutional amendment.
Rizwan Arshad, who headed the Joint Legislative Review Committee, said, “The whole concept of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill itself is futuristic. The earlier system on which BBMP was built and the Bill that we have formulated is different. We have tried to understand how Bengaluru will grow in the future and what kind of administrative mechanisms have to be put in place. Therefore, we have recommended that the city needs smaller yet robust administrative structures to govern. These administrative structures need to be decentralised so that they have more transparency and each area can be managed easily.”
Throwing light on the concerns regarding extending the term of mayor, he said, “A moderate area is assigned and the mayor will have a stable 30-month tenure instead of 11 months. The Opposition is claiming that MLAs will dictate mayors or corporators but I assure you that they will not have a say in it. Corporations are autonomous bodies so they will collect taxes and discuss it in their councils and then take up the expenditure and development. There is no provision for anybody to interfere.”
When asked that Opposition allegation that Congress has passed this bill to postpone BBMP elections which are already delayed, he answered, “The issue about mismanagement of the city is nothing to do with your elections. Even if corporators were there in BBMP, smooth administration would be a challenge. The first thing that the Congress government has done is to structure the administration and then hold the elections. Only then will we be able to achieve better results.”
He further added, “Even the BJP was in power for three years. Why were there no elections? We said we would hold elections. But we have always said that we would reform the administrative mechanism and then hold the elections. We are fulfilling our promises. The Opposition wanted the Bill to go to a select committee and consult all the stakeholders, We needed eight to nine months to frame this Bill and follow the process.”
Rizwan highlighted how BBMP and BWSSB (Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board) lacked coordination when they implement projects. He stressed that the Greater Bengaluru Authority would address serious issues of coordination.
“Through the GBG biBl, we can address the coordination issue between different bodies. Currently, there is no coordination between BBMP, BWSSB, BDA (Bangalore Development Authority), BMRCL (Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited) or any other corporations.”
“While projects are implemented cutting across all borders of the city, a coordinating body will be of great help. We have also ensured that the corporations have the autonomy to make their own decisions. The proposed Greater Bengaluru Authority is just a coordinating body and they will not govern the corporations or interfere in their functions.”
The Congress MLA highlighted that the party has not violated the constitution or the 74th Amendment.
“As the 74th amendment gives powers to city municipal corporations, the Constitution also gives power to the government to promulgate laws and regulate essential bodies. The law is not violated in any way. Today’s BBMP is a den of corruption and is a mismanaged body. Any political party would be delighted to have control over this kind of BBMP and that is why the Opposition is opposing this Bill. They would want to retain this corrupt system. Such a body cannot meet the aspirations of the people of Bengaluru,” Rizwan said.
Rizwan felt that a smaller corporation with decentralised powers is a more transparent one.
“There is a vigilance commission at the GBA so that there are checks and balances. There are internal audit systems in place. Apart from that, anybody can approach Lokayukta if they face corruption issues in these corporations. There will be competitive development and the corporations will adopt best practices which would lead to the development of the city,” he said.
Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition in the Karnataka Assembly R Ashoka seconded Ramamurthy and said that non-Kannadigas would have a chance rule Bengaluru as mayor, which is against the spirit of the state.
However, Rizwan points out that Bengaluru is a cosmopolitan city and it is difficult to eliminate people from the government system based on language. “A Bengalurean is a Bengalurean irrespective of the language they speak. It is certain that non-Kannadigas would become mayors.”
After the Bill was passed by the state government, members of the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum met the Governor and submitted a memorandum that voiced their concerns.
Kathyayini Chamaraj, who is a part of Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, said, “We requested the Governor to not give assent to this bill which, we believe, contains many undemocratic and unconstitutional provisions. However, he has returned the bill seeking clarifications not rejected it.”
“Therefore, we have decided to write a letter to the Congress leader Rahul Gandhi asking him to look into the Bill and direct the leaders in Karnataka not to go ahead with Great Bengaluru Authority or even other amendments in the Bill. We have heard him speak about not interfering in conducting elections for mayor or the fair functioning of the third tier of government,” she added.
She further expressed her surprise as to why the BJP and JD(S) did not oppose the Bill in the Legislative Council and chose to walk out. “MLAs of all parties are in cohort to let this Bill passed so that they could have a greater role in managing Bengaluru,” she said.
In the letter the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum sent to the Governor, it raised several concerns in detail.
The Forum said the Bill undermines the Constitutional provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, which gives the third tier of government the constitutional status of urban local self-government (ULSG) by assigning powers to the state government to control and manage the Greater Bengaluru Area (GBA).
Kathyayini said, “There has been a long delay in holding elections to urban local self-governments. This is largely because the power to determine the delimitation of wards and fixing of reservations for elections lies in the hands of the state government. Ideally, These powers should have been handed over to the State Election Commission (SEC). This has not even been done in the Bill and it allows for a continued violation of the Constitution.”
Another issue of concern that the citizens have raised is splitting Bengaluru into seven corporations with overriding power in the hands of the state government.
“This could lead to unequal development of poorer areas, which will have to rely on state grants. Revenue generated by the richer corporations will be used only for that part of the city. What about the rest of the city? It will lead to unequal development. Though they have promised to ensure equal development of the city, it will not happen unless it is statutorily guaranteed,” she said.
The 74th amendment envisaged the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC) as a decentralised body of the third tier of government for integrated planning in metro cities like Bengaluru.
However, through this new Bill and introduction of the Greater Bengaluru Area, it has usurped the role of the MPC by including all parastatals in it, the citizens claimed.
Kathyayini said, “It is another violation of the 74th CAA. The Bill now wants the MPC to be set up for an area bigger than the GBA, when there is already the Bangalore Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) headed by the CM. The GBA should be replaced with the MPC as the umbrella body, with the mayor of Bengaluru as its head.”
Prakash Belavadi, also part of the Bengaluru Town Hall Forum, expressed his emotions towards the city.
“We have seen this city grow and such violations of 74th CAA are unacceptable by the government. The Bbill envisages handing over the powers of local leaders like corporators to MLAs, MLCs and MPs, who will lay their hands on the city to loot. The Bill violates the self-governance of local bodies (BBMP) that is envisaged in the 74th CAA by giving representation to MLAs, MLCs, and MPs in GBA. It further provides the inclusion of an ‘Assembly Constituency-Level Consultative and Coordination Committee’ headed by the MLA of the Assembly constituency. So what about the powers of corporators and mayors?” he asked.
When asked about the possibility of the Governor giving assent to the Bill in the future, he replied, “We are fighting for a bigger cause by creating awareness among the public on what the government is trying to do. If not now, they are answerable to people after two and a half years. People will answer them during elections.”
The citizens group ask whether the decisions taken in Grama Sabha in rural areas would be implemented since the Bill categorises recommendations of the ward committees in the city as merely advisory.
“In order to weaken citizen participation, the Bill has empowered councillors to veto decisions of the ward committee. Then what is the point of having ward committees,” members of the forum asked.
“The Bill has done away completely with the Area Sabha, which is the urban version of the Grama Sabha in rural areas, which empowers every voter to be part of the planning and decision-making for his/her area. Though the Congress party leaders have justified that GBA is just a coordinating body and it would not interfere in the functions of Corporations, the bill provides GBA to thrust bye-laws framed by it on the proposed seven municipal corporations,” they added.
Activists allege that, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Bill makes three different laws with varying provisions in urban areas. It includes GBGB for Bengaluru citizens, the KMC Act 1976 for citizens of other municipal corporations, and the KM Act 1964 for citizens of smaller cities.
A group of citizens filed petition in the Supreme Court seeking to make provisions for ways and means of enabling citizens participation in the ruling of cities.
The smaller cities under the Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964, have provisions where Area Sabha members will themselves select the ward committee members. These ward committee members will have the powers of voting in the ward committee.
Here, citizens are empowered to select their own representatives to sit on the ward committee and has powers to decide on the best practices for their areas in the city. Where as, under the KMC Act 1976, Area Sabha representatives are nominated by the councillor and he/she doesn’t have a seat in the ward committee. The Area Sabha representatives are powerless as they only have to conduct meetings in the Area Sabhas.
Meanwhile, the ward committee members are nominated by the corporations. Besides, the councillor has veto power in the decisions of the ward committee. If the councillor does not like the decision of ward committee members, it could be declined through the veto power.
Similarly, in GBGB, in the ward committee, councillor will have veto power and some of the area sabha members will be selected by the Greater Bengaluru Authority, others are selected by the councillors and fewer through lottery system.
Kathyayini said, “The citizens are themselves not given full powers to select their Area Sabha representatives. GBGB further suggest to makes ward committee members decision are advisory in nature. The government has made it worse in all the ways. Therefore, the PIL that we have filed seeks similar provisions for citizen participation and powers across all the cities in Karnataka irrespective of their sizes and areas.
“In 2021, we filed a PIL (public interest litigation) in the high court demanding a common Act for all cities in Karnataka which is still pending (WP 17766/2021), questioning this inequality before the law. The court accepted the petition and issued notice to the government. The government is yet to respond to the notice but they have gone ahead with the passing of this Bill. How can they even justify this?” she questioned.
She added, “We have not only requested the Governor not to give assent to the bill but also form an expert committee to re-establish equality before the law by looking into the provisions of the KM Act, KMC Act and GBGB to formulate a common comprehensive act for urban local self-governments across Karnataka, with special provisions for bigger cities, wherever required.”
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil).
