Plea in Karnataka High Court challenges validity of GBG Act, notices issued

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday ordered notice to the state government, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State Election Commission in a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Act, 2024.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bhakru and CM Joshi directed the authorities to submit their responses by the next date of hearing, September 1.

The PIL is filed by film director TS Nagabharana along with G Manjunatha Raju, former BBMP corporator, and GS Renuka Prasad, chairman of Shanthinagar Residents Welfare Association. Senior advocate MB Nargund, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Greater Bengaluru Governance Authority violates the 74th amendment to the constitution, pertaining to the strengthening of municipal bodies. He said the last election to BBMP was conducted in August 2015 and now we are in the year 2025.

The petition said that the Greater Bengaluru Authority is an apparatus whose sole purpose is to continue to enable the state government to intrude into the administration and functioning of the local government, without holding elections. According to the petitioners, the Greater Bengaluru Authority is over and above the elected councillors and its establishment as per section 9 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act provides for running and administering the city corporation with total disregard for the elected body of councillors which according to them is unconstitutional.

Citing the decision in Kishan Singh Tomar case, the petitioners said the Apex Court had specified that the State Election Commissions are required to conduct time bound elections. The petition said the functions of the Greater Bengaluru Authority are almost the same as the municipality, which is contrary to the objects. “It shows that the Authority is not coordinating authority as contemplated under the objects of the Act. Further, Section 15 confers the responsibility of formulation and execution of major projects and for that purpose it can even borrow money as per Section 23 of the Act,” the petition said.

The petitioners further stated that under the constitution, the Metropolitan Planning Committee will have to prepare the draft development plan for metropolitan areas and would forward the plan to the state government. In the case of Greater Bengaluru Authority, as the Chief Minister himself being the ex officio chairman of the Authority, the separation of roles is completely removed. The petition further said that the minister in-charge of Bengaluru development is ex officio vice chairman of the authority and two other ministers are members who have voting power on par with mayors of the corporation.