Without an ombudsman, Bengaluru governance bill offers little comfort for citizens

Bengaluru: During the recent monsoon session of the legislative assembly, the state government introduced the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, citing the BBMP’s struggles to manage the city’s rapid expansion.

However, for ordinary citizens, the bill — currently under review by a 14-member legislative committee — offers little in terms of improving municipal services, which are essential for enhancing the city’s quality of life. Notably, the bill lacks a mechanism for citizens to appeal delays in addressing grievances, such as incomplete stormwater drainage work or undue demands from authorities for services like khata transfers or even cremation.

Worse, a crucial chapter on appointing a Greater Bengaluru Services Ombudsman — originally included in the draft by the four-member Brand Bengaluru Committee — has been omitted from the final version of the bill.

Policy experts argue that this omission denies citizens the right to appeal municipal issues directly and will force them to seek redress through other institutions, often requiring legal representation.

In the 286-page bill, the term “grievance” appears only once, with responsibility for handling grievances assigned to the Constituency Consultative Committee, led by the local legislator. The bill mandates that ward committees must meet at least once a month, but lacks punitive measures for engineers who neglect their duties.

Anil Kumar Janardhana, a longtime user of the Sahaaya app, has registered about 300 complaints so far. “Over 50% of these complaints are dismissed by engineers with trivial excuses. Some even use incorrect photographs to falsely claim they have addressed the issue. Recent emails to the BBMP chief commissioner’s office haven’t been effective either. Such negligence is unheard of in the private sector,” he said.

Janardhana added that many issues he resolves via email fall outside the BBMP’s jurisdiction.

Apart from civic grievances, there is no system within the BBMP for appealing against exorbitant bribes demanded by officers for various services.

For example, revenue officers reportedly demand bribes ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 5 lakh for khata-related services, with similar issues reported in the BBMP’s town planning department. Complaints related to illegal constructions mostly go ignored.

Kerala, TN models 

Srikanth Viswanathan, CEO of the not-for-profit organisation Janaagraha, called for an independent ombudsman to protect citizens’ interests.

“Kerala has such an institution that handles service-related issues and corruption in public offices. Bengaluru needs a similar mechanism. The state government should not be the authority overseeing municipal services; this role should be fulfilled by an independent body within the municipality,” he said.

Kerala was India’s first state to establish an ombudsman office for local governments in 2001.

This high-powered quasi-judicial body, led by a former high court judge, investigates cases of maladministration, corruption, and abuse of power by officials and elected representatives of local bodies.

A similar system exists in Tamil Nadu, where the ombudsman is empowered to investigate allegations against local body officials and employees.

States like Odisha and Jharkhand have provisions for establishing an ombudsman, but have yet to form such institutions.

Chapter omitted

Last year, the government formed a four-member committee to draft a new governance framework for Bengaluru, replacing the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP).

The draft bill, overseen by retired IAS officer BS Patil with the help of urbanist V Ravichandar and two others, included a chapter on appointing an ombudsman to handle public grievances. However, this chapter was removed from the final version of the bill presented to the assembly.

The committee’s draft stated that the ombudsman would have had the authority to receive and investigate complaints about municipal services, address maladministration and corruption, and handle arbitration issues.

Expert opinion 

Mathew Idiculla, a legal consultant, and urban policy expert, said an ombudsman is crucial, citing Kerala’s example. “An ombudsman ensures that grievance redress and service delivery systems operate more effectively. This independent body allows citizens to seek relief without resorting to other institutions or hiring legal representation,” he said.

Without an independent oversight body such as an ombudsman, experts are sceptical about the effectiveness of the new governance framework, which proposes a Greater Bengaluru Authority at the apex level, 1 to 10 smaller corporations and up to 400 wards. They argue that Bengaluru will continue to face the same issues even after the creation of smaller municipal corporations, as the draft bill fails to address core concerns from the citizens’ perspective.