Blurred borders will test Greater Bengaluru Authority

As Bengaluru has grown into one of India’s largest urban sprawls, the strain on its governance has become impossible to ignore. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was once responsible for 786 sq km and more than 12 million people. The job was too big for one body. From garbage to potholes to drains, services fell behind, and citizens often felt that the BBMP was too distant and too slow to respond.

The state has now brought in the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA). Instead of one BBMP, the city will now have five corporations, coordinated by the GBA. The objective is that smaller corporations will handle their areas better, while the GBA will ensure they all move in the same direction. While this is a significant shift that would assist in improving the delivery of citizen-centric services, it also creates a new risk that cannot be ignored: what happens at the boundaries of these corporations?

Earlier, with one BBMP, every ward had a single authority to turn to. Now, the city is carved into five zones. And where the lines are unclear, people may find themselves caught between two corporations or ignored by both. Hence, there is a real chance of being left out in these “blind spots”.

This is not a hypothetical fear. Imagine a ward cut in half by a corporation boundary, where garbage contractors may only cover one side of the road, or a pothole at the border may remain because neither side claims it. A leaking water pipe could be left untouched as officials pass the problem back and forth. The issue here is not unwillingness. It is an ambiguity in the assignment that occurs when authority is split, which opens up gaps.

This is serious because each corporation has wide powers under the law. Section 111 of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 makes them responsible for urban planning, land use, roads, water supply, waste management, public health, sanitation, fire services, and environmental protection. They must also run welfare programmes, improve slums, provide housing, support education and culture, reduce poverty, and provide disaster relief. If boundary wards are neglected due to confusion, residents could even miss out on healthcare, welfare schemes, or housing support.

Around the world, we have seen how poorly drawn maps can leave vulnerable communities unserved. In northern Nigeria, polio vaccination campaigns struggled for years. The problem was not unwilling health workers but the fact that many small settlements were split across administrative boundaries. Teams skipped these in-between areas, working strictly within their assigned zones. As a result, children went unvaccinated, and the virus spread.

The solution came through satellite mapping and GPS tracking, resulting in more than 3,000 new settlements being added to the maps. Teams were trained to use these maps and were monitored in real time. In one campaign, immunisation in remote settlements jumped from 43% to 82%. Once boundaries were clear, results improved as every settlement had someone responsible.

Interactive grievance redress

Bengaluru has begun taking similar steps, as there have been talks of setting up boundary towers and signboards for residents to know which corporation governs them, alongside Geographic Information System (GIS)-powered interactive tools for residents to know the limits of their corporation. These will help raise awareness, but it does not go far enough. Knowing whom to complain to is not the same as ensuring that services are actually delivered if responsibility and accountability remain unclear.

For GIS to have real value, it must provide a live and real-time feedback loop. Boundaries should not only be visible but tied to action. Garbage routes can be tracked to confirm coverage. Water and sanitation works should be logged against ward limits. Citizen complaints should be pinned to exact locations and automatically routed to the right corporation. Such instances require the GBA to act as a referee. Whenever overlaps or gaps appear between corporations, it must step in and settle the matter quickly.

Nigeria’s polio story gives Bengaluru two lessons. First, unclear maps and weak coordination can block progress. Second, the right tools and systems can fix the problem. The GBA must invest early in clarity and accountability.

Clear boundaries should make governance easier because when they appear to blur, they create blind spots. And in those blind spots, the citizens pay the price. Therefore, the real test of GBA lies in whether it can prevent gaps at the margins and ensure that no area, no matter how small or remotely located, is left ungoverned.

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