A costly delay in local body polls

Article 243U of the Constitution mandates the timely completion of municipal elections before the expiry of a local council’s term. The provision is intended to ensure effective local self-governance at the grassroots level. However, persistent delays in Urban Local Body (ULB) elections across various states are undermining the very essence of this constitutional mandate. A survey by Bengaluru-based NGO Janaagraha has revealed that about 61% of ULBs in major states have faced delays in holding elections. In Karnataka, the situation is particularly alarming, with 70% of the ULBs functioning without elected representatives. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), for instance, has not seen elections for over three years now, with successive governments, irrespective of the party in power, finding excuses to postpone them. These delays are supported by legislators who view elected local bodies as a challenge to their power, particularly over controlling the purse strings of municipal bodies.

The delayed elections to the ULBs, Zilla Panchayats (ZPs), and Taluk Panchayats (TPs) – both pending for three years – have significant financial implications, with the state missing out on about Rs 2,800 crore in central funds. According to the Finance Commission norms, local bodies that fail to hold timely elections are ineligible for a share from the central tax pool. The delay in ZP-TP elections has also led to a situation where officials take unilateral decisions on the implementation of schemes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised the constitutional duty of State Election Commissions (SEC) to conduct regular elections to the local bodies. In a scathing rebuke, the court had described such delays as “a breakdown of the rule of law”. The court had also ruled that SECs cannot cite reasons like delimitation of wards to justify the postponement. Under the 74th Amendment, SECs are entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence, direction, and control of municipal elections, to ensure that they are fair and conducted on time. However, in most states, this power is diluted – only 11 states and Union Territories have empowered SECs to manage the delimitation process. In the remaining states, including Karnataka, the responsibility remains with the government.

SECs need to be held accountable for these delays; they should be fully empowered and independent and not be beholden to the whims of state governments. They should ensure that the delimitation process is completed in advance and is never used as a pretext for the postponement. Local elections are the foundation of democratic governance. Delaying them is, in essence, a denial of democracy itself. It is crucial that all stakeholders, particularly SECs and state governments, act with urgency to address the issue.