<p class="bodytext">The residents of Bengaluru have been effectively disenfranchised for over five years, ever since the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) council’s term expired in 2020. This prolonged suspension of democracy is the result of repeated political and administrative manoeuvring aimed at bypassing the constitutional mandate for local self-governance. Last week, the Supreme Court directed that elections to the corporations under the newly constituted Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) be completed by June 30, 2026. While the order has revived public hope, scepticism remains, as successive governments have reneged on their promises, securing repeated extensions from the courts by citing pending issues of ward delimitation and OBC reservations. These technicalities have served as convenient pretexts to defer polls, allowing the state to maintain a grip on the city through bureaucratic proxies. While citizens are left without a mechanism for grievance redress, this arrangement also serves a political purpose, as local MLAs have developed a vested interest in the status quo to maintain absolute control over ward-level expenditure. Ironically, while Bengaluru contributes the lion’s share of the state’s revenue, its taxpayers have no say in how that money is spent at the ward level.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s stand has been unequivocal. In cases like <span class="italic">Kishan Singh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad</span> and <span class="italic">Suresh Mahajan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh</span>, the Court held that failure to hold local body elections on time amounts to a constitutional breakdown. It ruled that delimitation cannot justify delay: if new ward boundaries are not finalised, elections must be held based on the old ones. Even the ‘triple test’ for OBC reservations was not meant to stall polls indefinitely; if incomplete, the seats are to be notified as general category. Yet, despite laying down these sound principles, the Court’s own practice of granting extensions and entertaining repeated restructuring has effectively handed state governments a <span class="italic">carte blanche</span> to defer the electoral process.</p>.BJP flays Sanjay Raut over Saamana editorial linking Amit Shah to Sohrabuddin case.<p class="bodytext">Given this history, it is natural that doubts about the June 30 deadline persist. A draft reservation list for 369 new wards has now been published, and the inevitable flurry of objections has commenced. This should not be used as another excuse to postpone the polls. The Supreme Court must enforce its orders so that no government – in Karnataka or elsewhere – stifles local democracy at its whim. The residents of Bengaluru have a right to be governed by their own representatives. Local self-government is not a form of State-sponsored charity; it is a constitutional guarantee that has been denied for far too long.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The residents of Bengaluru have been effectively disenfranchised for over five years, ever since the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) council’s term expired in 2020. This prolonged suspension of democracy is the result of repeated political and administrative manoeuvring aimed at bypassing the constitutional mandate for local self-governance. Last week, the Supreme Court directed that elections to the corporations under the newly constituted Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) be completed by June 30, 2026. While the order has revived public hope, scepticism remains, as successive governments have reneged on their promises, securing repeated extensions from the courts by citing pending issues of ward delimitation and OBC reservations. These technicalities have served as convenient pretexts to defer polls, allowing the state to maintain a grip on the city through bureaucratic proxies. While citizens are left without a mechanism for grievance redress, this arrangement also serves a political purpose, as local MLAs have developed a vested interest in the status quo to maintain absolute control over ward-level expenditure. Ironically, while Bengaluru contributes the lion’s share of the state’s revenue, its taxpayers have no say in how that money is spent at the ward level.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s stand has been unequivocal. In cases like <span class="italic">Kishan Singh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad</span> and <span class="italic">Suresh Mahajan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh</span>, the Court held that failure to hold local body elections on time amounts to a constitutional breakdown. It ruled that delimitation cannot justify delay: if new ward boundaries are not finalised, elections must be held based on the old ones. Even the ‘triple test’ for OBC reservations was not meant to stall polls indefinitely; if incomplete, the seats are to be notified as general category. Yet, despite laying down these sound principles, the Court’s own practice of granting extensions and entertaining repeated restructuring has effectively handed state governments a <span class="italic">carte blanche</span> to defer the electoral process.</p>.BJP flays Sanjay Raut over Saamana editorial linking Amit Shah to Sohrabuddin case.<p class="bodytext">Given this history, it is natural that doubts about the June 30 deadline persist. A draft reservation list for 369 new wards has now been published, and the inevitable flurry of objections has commenced. This should not be used as another excuse to postpone the polls. The Supreme Court must enforce its orders so that no government – in Karnataka or elsewhere – stifles local democracy at its whim. The residents of Bengaluru have a right to be governed by their own representatives. Local self-government is not a form of State-sponsored charity; it is a constitutional guarantee that has been denied for far too long.</p>
