Mathew Idiculla

Twenty-fi��ve years ago, theConstitution underwentwhat is arguably its most sig-

nifi��cant transformation with thepassage of the 73rd (mandating thecreation of panchayats) and the74th (creation of municipalities)Constitutional Amendments.While the 73rd Amendment cameinto force on April 24, 1993, the74th Amendment came into eff��ecton June 1, 1993. As the Central Go-vernment’s Smart Cities missioncompletes three years this month,it’s the right time to examine In-dia’s tryst with municipalgovernance.

Much has been written aboutthe failure of States to implementthe provisions of the 74th Amend-ment. However, it is important toexamine concerns in the underly-ing constitutional design of urbanlocal governments and the politicsimpeding this Amendment’s oper-ation. The “implementation fai-lure” narrative tends to focus onhow local governments are fi��nan-cially constrained and do not havethe administrative capacity to car-ry out its functions. It is also im-portant to explore how urban lo-cal governments are actively

disempowered and depoliticisedas an institution.

The disempowerment and de-politicisation has happened inmultiple ways. First, elected repre-sentatives at the city-level are ren-dered powerless by making themsubservient to the State govern-ment. In most municipal corpora-tions, while the mayor is the cere-monial head, the executivepowers of the corporation arevested with the State government-appointed commissioner. This dis-juncture in municipal governancehas been exploited by State go-vernments to ensure that no city-level politician challenges theircontrol over a city.

An overshadowingMunicipal corporations are furth-er denied their political role by thecontinued operation of various pa-rastatal agencies created by theState government. These may takethe form of urban developmentauthorities (which build infras-tructure) and public corporations(which provide services such aswater, electricity and transporta-tion). These agencies, which func-tion with a certain autonomy, areaccountable only to the State go-vernment, not the local govern-ment. Even urban planning andland-use regulation (globally aquintessential local governmentfunction) is with State govern-ment-controlled developmentauthorities.

While parastatal agencies and

unelected commissioners arepre-74th Amendment legacies thathave not been undone, what is al-so worrying is the further depolit-icisation of local government in re-cent years. Central governmentprogrammes such as the Smart Ci-ties Mission seek to ring fence pro-jects from local government. Thisprogramme mandates the crea-tion of special purpose vehicles(SPVs) for Smart Cities which willhave “operational independenceand autonomy in decision makingand mission implementation”. Itfurther “encourages” a State go-vernment to delegate “the deci-sion-making powers available tothe ULB (urban local body) underthe municipal act/governmentrules to the Chief Executive Offi��cerof the SPV”.

The creation of parallel institu-tions that disempower the electedlocal government shows how high-er levels of government distrust lo-cal politics and craftily retain con-trol of a city’s reins. Even forperforming functions that arewithin its purview (such as levyinglocal taxes or undertaking civic

projects above a certain budget)the local government requiresState government permissions.Hence, municipalities are not yetautonomous units that can be ge-nuinely called as the “third tier” ofgovernment in India’s federal sys-tem. Even after the 73rd and 74thAmendments, India has eff��ectivelyonly two levels of government —Union and State.

Future pathways While the 74th Amendment hasbecome a lodestar for civic acti-vism in many cities, it has certaininherent limitations. Many of itskey provisions are not mandatoryfor the State government. Thefunctions listed under the 12thSchedule — which a State govern-ment is expected to devolve to thelocal government — do not includeessential civic issues such as urbantransportation, housing or urbancommons. The 74th Amendmentalso contains an industrial town-ship exception whereby a munici-pality need not be constituted inareas which are declared as indus-trial townships. These provisionshave been employed by State go-vernments to keep local govern-ments weak.

Civic activism has often been fo-cussed on the creation of two bo-dies mandated by the 74th Amend-ment — ward committees andmetropolitan planning commit-tees. However, an over-reliance onsuch semi-representative bodiesdoes not augur well for creating a

genuinely democratic city govern-ment. In fact, civil society’s fi��xa-tion with nominating its membersinto ward committees can furtherdepoliticise local governmentsand make them captive to the in-terests of certain elite residentwelfare associations. Instead ofdistrusting them, we must ack-nowledge that local governmentsare inherently political spaceswhere multiple interests compete.

As cities struggle to meet thebasic needs of their inhabitants,we must re-examine the existingmodes of organising power in ur-ban India. Unlike the 73rd Amend-ment which provides for three le-vels of panchayats (village, taluk,and district levels), power in ur-ban areas is concentrated in a sin-gle municipal body (whether it is amunicipal corporation, municipalcouncil or town panchayat). Ho-wever, as Indian cities have grownexponentially over the last 25years, with some crossing the 10million population mark, we mustrethink the present model of ur-ban governance that vests powerin a singular municipality. Whileurban governance reforms cantake multiple shapes, they must beforegrounded in the political em-powerment of local governmentthat furthers local democratic ac-countability.

Mathew Idiculla is a lawyer andresearcher on urban issues and workswith the Centre for Law and PolicyResearch, Bengaluru

The missing tiersThe disempowerment and depoliticisation of urban local government has happened in multiple ways

GETT

Y IM

AGES

/IST

OCKP

HOTO