Courts must see through the games govts play

Who’s the mayor of Bengaluru? Don’t worry if you do not know the answer. We don’t have one. In fact, we have not had one in more than two years. It seems that a lot of people think we don’t need one. This is odd, because all over the world, there are leaders who recognise the importance of cities in a nation’s development. In fact, from time to time, in the last 20 years, we have had a Union government that has set up big missions for urban development.

And yet, in Bengaluru, one of the largest cities in the country, we do not have a political leader chosen by the local people. There is no one to set the priorities of governance in the city. No one speaks specifically for the voters of this metropolis. There is no one whose only job is to look out for the developmental needs of this city.  

Nor is this issue new. We have seen this several times in the past. Mumbai does not have a mayor, either. Chennai did not have one for seven years. Elections for the post in Delhi were delayed. Clearly, there is a big gap between the walk and the talk. And it cuts across political parties. One might even say that this is one of the few things on which there is wide political agreement -- to make weak or non-functioning city councils and mayors. Even when we did have mayors (in Bengaluru), we kept changing them each year, more or less ensuring they could not do anything in that short tenure.

Who is to blame for this? The usual -- and correct -- answer is to point fingers at the state governments. Typically, MLAs and ministers worry that local elected people might eat into their sphere of influence and power. They prefer to find ways of delaying council polls. Often, when there is a chance that the election might be held despite their opposition, they come up with a new law that -- incidentally -- delays the poll. 

We have a Restructuring Committee to advise the government on how the city should be governed, and to propose new legislation for this, even as existing laws continue to be disregarded.

In fact, holding local elections is not the only thing that state governments have not done. There is another law that there should be an elected planning body for the city. We’re probably the largest unplanned city in the world by now. Despite the dire need for urban planning in the city, those in charge have not yet set up the Metropolitan Planning Committee as required by law.

Thirty-one years ago, parliament enacted the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act to devolve some powers of state governments to local councils and metropolitan planning bodies. That was more than a generation ago. And yet, apart from the Left parties, the others --including those who voted for it -- have not even come close to implementing it.

The symptoms we see, such as bad roads and frothing lakes and inadequate buses, are cascading effects of not letting local bodies function. If the elected representatives who are nearest to the voters are sidelined repeatedly, it makes it a lot harder for citizens to demand accountability. And MLAs who are busy doing the same thing as corporators end up ignoring their primary function as lawmakers. 

This brings us to another question. If there are laws in effect, and those are not being followed, people can go to the courts and seek redress. In this case, it is quite clear the law is not being implemented properly. Has no one complained to the high courts, and even the Supreme Court? They absolutely have. But that has not made much difference. 

Take the anti-defection law. It was meant to stop people crossing over from one political party to another after getting elected. It was passed in the 1980s. Has it stopped defections? Clearly not. If anything, ‘Operation Kamala’ has, in recent years, taken the disregard of that law to new heights. 

You and I, ordinary citizens, can see this – that despite the several orders of the courts on the issue, defections have not stopped. Similarly, the Supreme Court’s directions for reform in the police forces were handed down nearly two decades ago. But implementation by the state is marginal.

How’s that? We have courts to make sure the laws are followed. But state governments disregard all sorts of laws, and court directives. What is going on? There are a few patterns to this, and if we observe them, we can spot the answer quite easily.

The first one works like this. The government disregards a law, or finds a way to circumvent it. Someone goes to court. Based on the lapses in challenge before them, the courts pass orders and direct the government to comply by a specified date. The government then goes back to ignoring the law. Now, it is up to the petitioners, either the same ones or new ones, to go back to the courts. And again, the government will be directed to follow the law.

The second pattern is a little different. The government will agree that it is not adhering to the law, but it will argue that it is because it is considering enacting a different law. Since the courts cannot tell the government what law to pass or how soon, they give the government more time to do the right thing.

There’s a third pattern, too. The government will say that some critical step in following the law has not been completed. Local polls are often delayed by this tactic -- the state government will not carry out the delimitation to decide the new ward boundaries, and if that is not done, the election cannot be held. The court orders that step to be carried out. To this, the government says, some weeks later, that it has received numerous objections and needs time to consider all of them. 

After a while, it is all quite a show. Everyone can see the big picture. Local polls are not held. Defections are common. Police reforms are not implemented. Planning bodies are not set up. These are all facts, though all of these things are required by law. But we are dependent on the courts to get to that outcome in each case, and there is no shortage of delaying tactics that governments resort to.

For the sake of good governance and upholding the law, the judiciary must see through these patterns followed by governments and solve the issues. From the citizen’s viewpoint, the patterns followed by the government must stop.

(The writer is an entrepreneur, activist and public thinker)