Bengaluru, a metropolis that has witnessed exponential growth in both its population and vehicular traffic over the past two and a half decades, finds itself at a critical juncture in its civic administration.
A striking anomaly in this period of rapid expansion is that the city has had an elected council for a mere 15 years. This translates to nearly a decade where the civic affairs of this burgeoning tech hub have been predominantly managed by bureaucrats, rather than elected councillors directly accountable to the citizenry. This prolonged absence of local representation has arguably contributed to a myriad of urban challenges, including deteriorating road infrastructure, inconsistent waste management, increased vulnerability to flooding during monsoons, and the pervasive issue of potholes that plague the city’s thoroughfares. The genesis of Bengaluru’s civic body dates back to 1949 with the formation of the Bangalore City Corporation (BCC) through the amalgamation of two distinct municipalities, serving a population of approximately 750,000. However, the transformative Information Technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s triggered an unprecedented surge in Bengaluru’s population, ballooning it several-fold to an estimated 13 million. This dramatic demographic shift has placed immense strain on the city’s infrastructure and administrative capacity, leading to the aforementioned challenges in urban management.
Over the decades, the BCC underwent several name changes, becoming the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in 1989 and subsequently the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in 2007. Each renaming coincided with a significant expansion of the corporation’s jurisdictional limits, incorporating a greater number of wards to accommodate the growing populace. The administrative structure has now evolved into the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). In a move that some see as a return to its foundational structure, the State government has proposed a further division of this expansive area into multiple municipal corporations, with considerations ranging from three to five smaller entities, potentially bringing the city’s administrative framework full circle to its initial formation through the merging of smaller municipalities. According to the Karnataka Economic Survey of 2024-25, the initial BCC comprised seven divisions, which were later expanded to 50, known as wards. As the city’s population continued its upward trajectory, the BCC/BMP further expanded to include 87 wards in 1991 and 100 wards by 1995. A significant restructuring in 2007, which led to the formation of the BBMP, saw the inclusion of 198 wards through the addition of seven City Municipal Corporations, one Taluk Municipal Corporation, and 110 surrounding villages, reflecting the rapid urban sprawl and the increasing complexity of managing a city of Bengaluru’s scale.
The recent history of Bengaluru’s civic governance reveals a significant period without elected representation. For nearly a decade within the last two and a half, the absence of a council has placed the onus of managing the city’s burgeoning civic issues primarily on the shoulders of bureaucrats. Since September 2020, Bengaluru has been without a functioning council, with senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers administering the city’s affairs. According to a high-ranking bureaucrat, the formation of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, including the crucial steps of dividing the existing BBMP into smaller corporations, redrawing ward boundaries (delimitation), and establishing councillor reservations for these new wards, is a complex process that is expected to take at least six to eight months, and potentially longer if any legal challenges arise. This protracted timeline implies that the much-anticipated corporation elections may not occur in the immediate future, extending the period during which Bengaluru will continue to operate without an elected council. The absence of councillors has placed an increased burden on the city’s Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), Members of Parliament (MPs), and administrative officials. Critics argue that the primary duty of MLAs and MPs is to formulate laws and policies at the state and national levels, respectively, rather than being directly involved in monitoring local civic issues such as floods or stagnant water on roads, which are typically the purview of local councillors.
Sources within the BBMP have indicated that the absence of an elected council has also had financial repercussions, with the city reportedly missing out on significant central government grants allocated to urban local bodies under schemes like the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and the 15th Finance Commission. The last instance of BBMP receiving these crucial funds was reportedly in 2021. R Ashoka, the Leader of the Opposition, has sarcastically referred to the proposed Greater Bengaluru Authority as ‘Quarter’ Bengaluru, criticising the state government’s plan to divide the city into smaller municipal corporations. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has alleged that this restructuring is a strategic manoeuvre by the state government to further postpone the much-delayed civic body elections.
However, Deputy Chief Minister and Bengaluru Development Minister DK Shivakumar has offered a contrasting perspective, stating that the elections for the new corporations will be held within the next four months. This assertion has been met with scepticism from some quarters. Harish S, a former Deputy Mayor and BJP leader, has indicated that the party is preparing to challenge the state government’s decision in court. He argued that the division of the existing BBMP is a flawed model, citing the example of Delhi, where the initial trifurcation of the civic authority was later reversed due to its perceived failure, leading to a reunification of the corporations. Harish S further contended that since the formation of the BBMP, a substantial sum of ₹1 lakh crore has been invested in the uniform development of the city, encompassing roads, solid waste management, and other essential services. He questioned the rationale behind dividing the city and establishing the GBA over these new corporations, arguing that it constitutes a violation of the 74th Amendment of the Constitution, which pertains to the powers and responsibilities of urban local bodies. He raised concerns about the potential erosion of the decision-making powers of elected councillors if the GBA becomes the overarching authority for all major decisions.
Despite the political wrangling and concerns raised by the opposition and civic activists, officials have pointed out potential advantages of creating smaller municipal corporations. They highlighted the existing disparity in ward populations, ranging from a few thousand to over a lakh, while ward-level grants remain uniform, creating an inherent inequity. Smaller municipalities, they argue, could lead to better administration and more effective monitoring of local issues. While zonal commissioners exist in eight zones, their powers are limited compared to a single commissioner with city-wide authority. The sheer size of 198 wards makes it practically impossible for a single commissioner to adequately address the needs and concerns of each ward, necessitating a more decentralised administrative structure.
An anonymous BBMP officer also noted the potential benefits of including peri-urban areas with significant building developments under the GBA. These gram panchayats often lack the resources and capacity to maintain the infrastructure and provide essential facilities for these large developments. Inclusion under the GBA could also lead to increased tax revenue, benefiting the overall urban planning and development of these areas. However, concerns have also been raised regarding potential revenue imbalances among the newly formed corporations, which could lead to uneven development across the city. Former BBMP Commissioner Kumar Naik, now a Congress MP, acknowledged that while the Greater Bengaluru Authority is a welcome move in principle, it is not a panacea for all of Bengaluru’s urban challenges. He cautioned against a purely cosmetic reform, urging the city to learn from the experiences of other cities that have experimented with similar models of bifurcating and later merging corporations, to ensure a truly transformational outcome.
Civic activists have voiced their unease over the significant decision-making powers being vested in the GBA. Kathyayini Chamaraj, executive trustee of CIVIC Bangalore, expressed concern that under the GBA, even essential functions like solid waste management fall under its purview, with all major schemes being prepared by a state-level body. She questioned the autonomy and authority of the future elected local bodies if crucial decisions are centralised within the GBA. According to her, planning and bylaws will be dictated by the GBA, potentially stifling local initiatives and reducing the role of elected representatives to primarily addressing basic maintenance issues like pothole repairs. She fears that even budgetary decisions will be centralised, diminishing the ability of local corporations to independently determine their developmental priorities. Providing insight into the operational framework of the new system, Tushar Giri Nath, Additional Chief Secretary (Urban Development), stated that with the implementation of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA) from May 15, existing Acts like the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act will be superseded. He clarified that the first step involves officially notifying the area that will constitute Greater Bengaluru, followed by its division into smaller corporations as per Section 5 of the GBG Act. He also assured that the GBG Act includes provisions for a transition phase, allowing for the establishment of rules and regulations to ensure a smooth handover to the new governance structure.
Rizwan Arshad, Chairman of the Joint Committee of lawmakers on GBA, defended the Act, asserting that it will ensure the decentralisation of power, with outer areas receiving a fair share of projects and funds. He argued that smaller corporations will be more manageable and transparent. He contrasted this with the current BBMP system, where every file requires clearance from a single chief commissioner. Under the new structure, each corporation will have its own commissioner and a mayor elected for a 2.5-year term, promoting more localised decision-making.
Addressing concerns that the GBA might undermine the authority of local corporators, Arshad stated that this is a misconception, as the rules governing local bodies will remain intact. He clarified that while large infrastructure projects will be undertaken by the state government, annual maintenance, smaller local projects, regular administration, tax collection, and expenditure will remain within the purview of the individual corporations. Regarding concerns about the Chief Minister chairing the GBA meetings and potential delays due to his availability, Arshad explained that the GBA Act mandates a review meeting chaired by the CM once every three months, with the Bengaluru district in-charge minister chairing the meetings in his absence, ensuring regular progress reviews. He reiterated that the primary objective of the GBA is to simplify the administration of Bengaluru.
Despite the state government’s ambition to create a ‘Brand Bengaluru’, the city continues to grapple with fundamental civic issues such as uncleared garbage, potholes, and a lack of adequate pedestrian infrastructure. The effectiveness of the Greater Bengaluru Authority in addressing these long-standing problems and restoring Bengaluru’s former glory remains to be seen, requiring careful observation and evaluation of its implementation and impact.
Also Read: Hyderabad Aramghar Traffic 15 Day Diversion Starts Now Use Alternate Routes
