Published Sep 24, 2026 | 8:37 AM ⚊ Updated Sep 24, 2026 | 8:37 AM
Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla gave his assent to the Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026, on 22 September.
Synopsis: Telangana Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla, on Tuesday, gave his assent to the CURE Bill, passed by the state Assembly on 12 September. The state made a draft Bill available for public feedback in July. Still, a comparison of the two versions shows the government failed to incorporate citizens’ suggestions before introducing it in the Assembly.
The Telangana Legislative Assembly formally passed the Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026, on 12 September, more than two months after making a draft Bill available for public consultation. The Bill officially became an Act on Tuesday, 22 September, after receiving Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla’s assent.
Repealing the seven-decade-old Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) Act, 1955, and establishing a consolidated statutory framework governing the expanding city, the Act formally reconstitutes the GHMC into three corporations.
The three new municipal corporations—Greater Hyderabad, Cyberabad, and Malkajgiri—would fall under the Core Urban Region.
The Act proposed major amendments, including an integrated digital portal for service delivery, specialised authorities for climate resilience and disaster response, night economy zones, and replacing the traditional Annual Rental Value (ARV) property tax system with a market-linked Capital Value System (CVS), among others.
When the draft Bill opened for consultation in July, it drew widespread criticism from civil society. Many citizens submitted objections and suggestions. IT and Industries Minister D Sridhar Babu said the government evaluated 4,107 public representations and incorporated 70 specific changes, while introducing the amended Bill in the Assembly on 12 September.
Despite the minister’s assertions that public feedback reshaped the legislation, a comparison of the Act’s September version with the July draft showed only a few major changes, while several controversial proposals remain untouched.
Also Read: The many flaws in the law that make illegal buildings pay
Earlier, civic groups, policy experts, and the general public pointed out that the 271-page draft was released only in English, excluding the vast Telugu- and Urdu-speaking population, directly impacted by the civic code. People also took umbrage at the 20-day window for public comments, which ended on 24 July. They demanded an extension. The demand was rejected.
Beyond inaccessibility and the time crunch, the draft’s provisions drew opposition across the political and civic spectrum. A major point of contention was the proposed shift from the Annual Rental Value (ARV) system to a Capital Value System (CVS), which would link property tax to the government’s market value of the property. It could lead to higher property taxes for owners.
The draft also included a transition clause in Section 78. It allowed annual property tax bills to rise by up to 20% each year until the full benchmark capital value tax was reached.
The Bill drew flak for prioritising administrative decision-making and leaving little space for public participation. It proposed a chief minister-led CURE Apex Governance Council, empowered to set overall policy, strategic priorities, and inter-agency agendas across the metropolitan region.
Activists said the centralised structure created an unconstitutional body that superseded elected Mayors, Corporators, and Ward Committees, and undermined local governance. The structure, they said, violated the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which granted constitutional status to municipalities, strengthened urban governance, and ensured elections, reservations, and better city planning.
The Confederation of Resident Welfare Associations (CoRWA) raised similar concerns in a formal representation. Its Secretary General, BT Srinivasan, noted that the Bill did not mandate a functional Ward Committee with real powers in every ward.
CoRWA specifically demanded the withdrawal of clauses allowing the State government to suspend Corporation resolutions and dissolve an elected Corporation outright. The Confederation termed both an erosion of local self-governance.
Section 161 of the draft gave the Municipal Commissioner powers to cancel permissions and order penalties, sealing, or demolition of properties found to have been obtained through misrepresentation of material facts or false documentation. Section 167 allowed municipal authorities to snap essential water, electricity, and sewerage service connections without an official Occupancy Certificate. If any part of a building violated rules, no part of the building could receive utility connections. RWAs noted that those sections would punish property owners for errors committed by builders and developers.
Policy analysts pointed to several irregularities in the Act’s fiscal architecture. They argued that the Act did not specify how the Corporation may raise and spend public money. The information was relegated to schedules, but analysts felt such provisions deserved a floor debate.
Also Read: Telangana rolls out Indiramma Illu housing scheme in Hyderabad’s Core Urban Region
Minister Babu introduced the Bill in the Legislative Assembly on 12 September. The most discussed change was in Section 78, where the government reduced the maximum annual property tax transition cap from 20% to 10% from the previous year’s bill.
Addressing charges of executive centralisation, the minister told the House that the Chief Minister-led Apex Governance Council would function strictly in an advisory and coordination capacity. He assured the members that Mayors, Corporators, and municipal councils would retain their independent statutory powers.
The Act introduces “CURE 1” as an integrated common billing platform combining property tax, water, sewerage, and sanitation charges. It removed over 100 obsolete provisions inherited from the 1955 GHMC Act, including references to octroi levies, taxes on carts, horses, and dogs, smallpox management rules, and outdated mental asylum regulations.
Also Read: Telangana delegation to K’taka seeks 5,000 cusecs of Krishna water
Despite many citizens providing feedback on the draft Bill, and the minister promising substantial changes, all major controversial proposals remained. While the government publicised a reduction in the annual transition tax cap from 20% to 10% under Section 78, it enacted Section 76 without modification.
The fundamental flaw RWAs and policy analysts flagged is that property tax calculated via CVS would ignore factors such as the building’s age, structural depreciation, or civic service levels, and would remain unchanged. Consequently, older residential structures in the core urban region would face compounding tax revisions based on land value appreciation rather than building utility.
Opposition legislators from the BJP and AIMIM warned in the Assembly that linking property tax to government land registration guideline values would cause tax liabilities to double rapidly, hitting middle- and lower-income households. Minister Babu said the tax proposals would affect only the wealthy. He claimed that a 375 sq ft unit occupied by a low-income family would be charged approximately ₹101 per year.
While the minister offered verbal reassurances in the House that the CURE Apex Governance Council would act “strictly in an advisory role”, the Act put it differently. The statutory text creating the council under Section 231 was not amended to restrict its overarching policy-setting powers. It also did not restore the statutory rights, information access, and monitoring functions stripped from elected Ward Committees.
Sections 161, 167, and more, condemned by Resident Welfare Associations, were likewise carried over verbatim into the final Act. The clauses granting the State government powers to override elected Municipal Corporation representatives and dissolve elections were unchanged.
The structural and fiscal traps policy analysts exposed remained embedded in the new framework. Section 94 was retained verbatim, empowering authorities to collect property tax penalties of up to 300% on unauthorised structures indefinitely “till such unauthorised construction is demolished or regularised”.
CoRWA’s BT Sreenivasan expressed disappointment over the Assembly clearing the Bill without any changes.
“We have submitted several representations in July, but none of them was considered. It’s as if they haven’t taken any feedback from the public. Our demand is more provisions for citizen participation in policymaking,” he told South First.
“Apart from minor roles in maintenance of parks and such things, there’s no room for citizens in major decisions. We know that once the Bill gets the Governor’s assent, we can’t do much about it,” he added.
Sreenivasan said the federation would meet Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy, who also holds the portfolio for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, and convey their grievances.
Public policy expert Donthi Narasimha Reddy had earlier written to Governor Shukla urging him to return the Bill under Article 200 of the Indian Constitution.
“I wanted the Bill to be rejected because it is unconstitutional. They moved it forward without reflecting the spirit of public consultation or integrating public feedback. They followed the process at a rudimentary level without conviction. It was passed the day it was introduced without conducting a proper discussion,” he told South First on Wednesday, 23 September.
Reddy said the Bill should have been opened to the public again after making the changes.
“They say they got 4,000 suggestions and they have implemented 70. What are those? There is no clarity. They should have appointed a committee and explained why they rejected a recommendation. Instead, the public received no response to their feedback,” Reddy said. He added that he planned to challenge the Act in court.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
