Context:
An editorial debate highlights the weakening of mayoral authority in Indian cities despite constitutional backing under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. It examines how political interference, weak financial autonomy, and institutional design flaws have limited effective urban self-governance, raising concerns at a time of rapid urbanization.
Key Highlights:
Status of Urban Leadership in India
• Indian cities lack visible and empowered Mayors, unlike global cities such as New York or London.
• Municipal elections delays (e.g., Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation elections scheduled for 2026) weaken democratic accountability.
• Structural changes like BBMP’s division into five corporations and merger of 27 municipalities into GHMC raise governance concerns.
Constitutional Framework vs Reality
• The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 aimed to strengthen Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).
• Despite constitutional intent, urban decentralisation remains weak, with power concentrated at the State level.
Political Interference and Power Imbalance
• Chief Ministers have emerged as the most powerful actors in city governance, overshadowing Mayors.
• MLAs and MPs as ex-officio members of municipal bodies undermine the authority of corporators and Mayors.
• Decision-making often bypasses elected local representatives.
Financial Constraints and Administrative Issues
• Financial decentralisation remains inadequate, limiting ward-level autonomy.
• Ward offices struggle to secure funds for basic civic functions.
• Parastatal agencies dominate key urban services without clear accountability to Mayors.
• Frequent reorganisation of municipal boundaries is sometimes used to delay elections rather than improve governance.
Relevant Prelims Points:
• Issue: Weak urban governance due to limited mayoral powers and excessive state control.
• Causes: Political interference, inadequate financial devolution, dominance of parastatals, delayed elections.
• Government Initiatives: 74th Constitutional Amendment, State Municipal Acts, Smart Cities Mission (indirectly impacting urban governance).
• Benefits of Strong Mayors: Accountability, quicker decision-making, citizen-centric governance.
• Challenges: State reluctance to devolve power, lack of fiscal autonomy, overlapping authorities.
• Impact: Inefficient service delivery, erosion of local democracy, weak urban planning.
Relevant Mains Points:
• Key Concepts:
– Decentralisation: Transfer of powers and responsibilities to local governments.
– Parastatals: State-controlled bodies delivering urban services independently of elected ULBs.
– Ex-officio Members: MPs/MLAs included in municipal bodies by virtue of office.
• Constitutional Provisions:
– Article 243P–243ZG (Urban Local Bodies)
– 12th Schedule – Functions of municipalities
• Governance Issues: Supply-driven decentralisation, lack of public demand for empowered local governments.
• Way Forward:
– Direct election of empowered executive Mayors with fixed tenure.
– Clear delineation of powers between State, Mayor, Council, and parastatals.
– Strengthening fiscal autonomy through predictable transfers and own-source revenues.
– Timely municipal elections and institutional accountability.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
• GS 1: Evolution of local governance in modern India.
• GS 2: Polity – Urban local governance, decentralisation, democratic institutions.
• GS 2 (Governance): Institutional reforms, accountability, citizen-centric administration.