Karnataka: Why Siddaramaiah Government’s Bengaluru Governance Bill Has Run Into Trouble

The Karnataka cabinet on 22 July cleared the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, effectively making way for the proposed restructuring of the existing municipal corporation — Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

The bill was tabled in the assembly for further discussion and vote, but it faced opposition from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Janata Dal (Secular).

In 2014, a three-member expert committee was constituted by the state government to recommend changes to the city's governance and restructure the BBMP more effectively.

B S Patil, former chief secretary, led the panel of experts with urban expert V Ravichandar and Siddaiah, a retired Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer.

The committee recommended many changes, including the creation of multiple corporations to ease the process of administration and resolve bottlenecks.

They came up with a draft — Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2018.

This bill is seen as an alternative to the BBMP Act 2020, passed by the BJP government.

Instead of decentralising the administration, the new 2020 law strengthened the state government's grip over the BBMP, complicating issues further.

Bengaluru faces significant infrastructure issues with roads, waste segregation and processing facilities, and parking spaces for vehicles.

However, the bill that has been cleared by the cabinet is a watered-down version of the original proposal submitted to the Government of Karnataka.

Here are some reasons why civic society has been expressing its doubts over the new version of the bill —

First, in the original report, the committee recommended providing the planning powers to the Greater Bengaluru Authority, an apex body. However, the cabinet-cleared version has rested this power with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA).

Second, instead of having a Mayor-in-Council as suggested by the committee, the government has instead proposed the normal route of having a standing committee to clear all the executive decisions.

While the former can be directly held accountable, the same cannot be said about the standing committees.

The cabinet has retained a couple of recommendations, including the one proposed to increase the number of wards to 400 and municipal bodies to five. But that is not enough, critics say.

Third, ministers, as opposed to members of the legislative assembly (MLAs), will be involved in the approval of major projects and conceptualisation of plans for the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA).

In the report, the Patil committee recommended involving the MLAs in the decision-making process. Apart from the home and energy departments and ministers elected from Bengaluru, no MLAs are encouraged to be involved in the executive committee.

The municipal elections have been continuously postponed since 2020. Critics suggest that the bill is merely a distraction created by the Congress to drive away the focus on conducting elections soon.

Fourth, the committee's suggestion of having a democratic process of choosing the 20 ward members for the local committees. This would mean that a person who gets 10 per cent or more vote share gets a representation at the table. While 10 members would be elected, the other 10 would come from civil society groups like Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs).

The bill, however, does not mention how the nominations would take place and has limited its functions. Moreover, critics suggest that the tabled bill has no mention of the GBA's planning authority and has allegedly curtailed its executive powers.

These are directly in contravention of the 74th amendment to the Constitution.

Fifth, the bill is accused of being loaded with tax provisions such as entertainment tax, GBA cess, development charges, property tax, advertisement charges, urban land transport and infrastructure cess, user charges for water supply, drainage and sewerage, and solid waste management, fee for parking different types of vehicles in different areas for different periods.

The GBA plan has triggered a series of events. Many leaders have expressed their desire to get their towns and villages renamed into a part of 'Bengaluru' for its brand value. Yelahanka, Devanahalli, Tumakuru and Kanakapura, for instance, have the potential to be developed as greenfield satellite cities on the lines of how Noida and Gurugram grew in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Instead of providing full financial and administrative autonomy to the GBA, as recommended by the expert panel, the watered-down version puts the chief minister, Bengaluru development minister, and heads of the parastatals as members of the executive committee in the apex body. Many believe that this will increase corruption and decrease locals' say in matters of governance.

Many also fear the rise of non-Kannadigas in administrative and political roles, and resent multiple corporations being led by powerful non-locals.

The bill has been put on hold and referred to the House panel of Karnataka legislature for further suggestions and comments amid an uproar from the opposition parties.