Bridge governance gaps, revitalise ULBs

The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, enacted in 1992, provides for the establishment of urban local bodies (ULBs) as institutions for local self-governance. The Act aims at democratic decentralisation, empowering states to devolve certain functions to ULBs to bring democracy to the grassroots level. However, in reality, ULBs have been disempowered and lack autonomy over city development due to several city-level functions being taken over by parastatal agencies. One might question why it is problematic if parastatal agencies ease the burden on ULBs by performing some functions. These agencies, created by legislation, operate with their own capital and decision-making powers, headed by bureaucrats who are directly accountable to the state government rather than the ULBs, thus diluting the ULB’s power. Additionally, the lack of coordination between these agencies and the ULBs exacerbates challenges related to overlapping powers and a lack of synergy between these institutions. 

In Bengaluru, several important municipal and developmental works are carried out by multiple parastatal agencies such as the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), the Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM), and the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), among others. However, these agencies often face challenges when their functions overlap with those of other institutions, leading to a failure in coordination and impeding project enforcement. For example, the Karnataka government withdrew the 2031 master plan prepared by the BDA because it conflicted with the transit-oriented policy prepared by the Directorate of Urban Land Transport. A lack of coordination was also evident when the BBMP’s master plan on storm water drains contradicted the BDA’s master plan. A study by Azim Premji University also highlighted how overlapping administrative jurisdictions between municipal corporations and state health services, coupled with a lack of coordination between them, resulted in chaos in urban healthcare. Additionally, disputes between parastatal agencies and ULBs further complicate coordination issues, as these agencies often shift responsibility and blame to one another.

The severe fragmentation of governance across the ULBs, the parastatal agencies, and other departments has led to a complete absence of transparency and clear systematic processes. The state government can take two steps to resolve coordination issues between these institutions. Firstly, it can establish a coordination committee at the state level headed by the Chief Secretary of the State, where the commissioners of various institutions will be required to periodically meet to discuss cross-cutting issues. However, history shows that many coordination committees were created over the years without any success. In 2021, a committee was set up by the Chief Secretary to improve coordination among agencies that work on cross-cutting issues. While coordination meetings between the senior officials of the agencies may prove to be crucial, they are often futile because the message is lost in translation and when it is conveyed to those who actually oversee the implementation of projects on the ground.

Therefore, there is a need to supplement the functioning of these committees with a coordination committee at the zonal level that can ensure effective coordination and supervision of the implementation of any project that falls within the respective zone. The Zonal Committee can be headed by the Mayor and include the Zonal Commissioner. The committee can conduct meetings, as and when required, to ensure coordination and resolve any clash that may arise on the implementation of projects on the ground by the respective agencies by creating a mechanism for all strategic and operational matters. The zonal commissioners need to be made ex-officio members of the state-level coordination committee, as they can convey ground-level realities and difficulties in the implementation of projects. This can ensure synergy between the coordination committee both at the state level and the zonal level.

Secondly, the parastatal agencies are directly accountable to the state government and are currently not answerable to the ULBs. The ULB is merely reduced to just another body on a similar level as that of the parastatal agency, despite having elected councillors and a mayor. In this regard, there is a need for the state government to re-imagine the functions, clarifying the hierarchy and clearly assigning the roles of parastatal agencies without diluting the role of the ULBs.

While the spirit of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act has been lost with the overlapping jurisdictional set-up of institutional mechanisms, it is the unprecedented urbanisation in Karnataka that calls for constituting coordination committees at the state and zonal levels to avoid the tussle between parastatal agencies, ULBs, and other institutions and to rethink their functions to avoid an overlap in their functions and powers.

(The writer is a senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)