<p class="bodytext">The move to once again postpone elections to the Greater Bengaluru Authority – the successor to the BBMP – is a calculated subversion of constitutional democracy. Bengaluru last voted for its civic body in August 2015, and the council’s term ended in September 2020. In the six years since, governance has been suspended, first under the pretext of ward delimitation and, then, under the guise of restructuring the BBMP. The Supreme Court, recognising this drift, drew a firm line by directing that elections be completed by June 30 and warning that no further extensions would be entertained. Yet, in a telling display of institutional evasion, the State Election Commission (SEC) has approached the Court, citing a lack of funds and the government’s request to postpone polls until September 30, ostensibly due to ongoing census duties and the proposed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. These are not reasons; they are recycled excuses.</p>.Bengaluru cops review security for Umar Khalid-themed event amid opposition by BJP.<p class="bodytext">The apex court has repeatedly affirmed that Articles 243-E and 243-U mandate the timely installation of elected local bodies every five years. In <span class="italic">Kishan Singh Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad</span> (2006), it ruled that the election schedule is “mandatory” and cannot be deferred for administrative reasons. This position was reaffirmed in <span class="italic">Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh</span> (2022), where a three-judge Bench ruled that ongoing delimitation or reorganisation cannot stall elections, which must proceed on an “as is where is” basis. The Court further stated that financial constraints are no defence – the State is duty-bound to provide the necessary resources to the EC. It also held that the SEC must proceed with elections without waiting for the state government to complete delimitation or ward mapping, to prevent a “hiatus in governance”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">What is unfolding in Bengaluru is precisely the constitutional mischief the 73rd and 74th Amendments sought to prevent. By prolonging the administrator rule, the State has effectively hollowed out the third tier of governance, depriving citizens of elected representation at the grassroots. This is a democratic deficit with real consequences for accountability, urban planning, and civic services. The Supreme Court must view this petition with the scepticism it deserves. To grant another extension would be to legitimise deliberate delay. Instead, the Court should enforce its deadline with rigour and, if necessary, initiate contempt proceedings against those responsible for this prolonged defiance. Bengaluru cannot remain a city governed by bureaucratic fiat. The restoration of an elected civic body is a constitutional imperative that can brook no further delay.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The move to once again postpone elections to the Greater Bengaluru Authority – the successor to the BBMP – is a calculated subversion of constitutional democracy. Bengaluru last voted for its civic body in August 2015, and the council’s term ended in September 2020. In the six years since, governance has been suspended, first under the pretext of ward delimitation and, then, under the guise of restructuring the BBMP. The Supreme Court, recognising this drift, drew a firm line by directing that elections be completed by June 30 and warning that no further extensions would be entertained. Yet, in a telling display of institutional evasion, the State Election Commission (SEC) has approached the Court, citing a lack of funds and the government’s request to postpone polls until September 30, ostensibly due to ongoing census duties and the proposed Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. These are not reasons; they are recycled excuses.</p>.Bengaluru cops review security for Umar Khalid-themed event amid opposition by BJP.<p class="bodytext">The apex court has repeatedly affirmed that Articles 243-E and 243-U mandate the timely installation of elected local bodies every five years. In <span class="italic">Kishan Singh Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad</span> (2006), it ruled that the election schedule is “mandatory” and cannot be deferred for administrative reasons. This position was reaffirmed in <span class="italic">Suresh Mahajan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh</span> (2022), where a three-judge Bench ruled that ongoing delimitation or reorganisation cannot stall elections, which must proceed on an “as is where is” basis. The Court further stated that financial constraints are no defence – the State is duty-bound to provide the necessary resources to the EC. It also held that the SEC must proceed with elections without waiting for the state government to complete delimitation or ward mapping, to prevent a “hiatus in governance”.</p>.<p class="bodytext">What is unfolding in Bengaluru is precisely the constitutional mischief the 73rd and 74th Amendments sought to prevent. By prolonging the administrator rule, the State has effectively hollowed out the third tier of governance, depriving citizens of elected representation at the grassroots. This is a democratic deficit with real consequences for accountability, urban planning, and civic services. The Supreme Court must view this petition with the scepticism it deserves. To grant another extension would be to legitimise deliberate delay. Instead, the Court should enforce its deadline with rigour and, if necessary, initiate contempt proceedings against those responsible for this prolonged defiance. Bengaluru cannot remain a city governed by bureaucratic fiat. The restoration of an elected civic body is a constitutional imperative that can brook no further delay.</p>
