<p>Stung by the declining quality of life in Bengaluru, the Karnataka government set up a three-member restructuring committee, in 2014, to suggest ways to improve governance of the city. After over 1,000 feedback points and meetings with experts, a set of ten reports and a draft Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) bill was submitted through 2014-18. The findings gathered digital dust.</p>.<p>In 2023, the committee became a four-member Brand Bengaluru Committee which finalised and submitted a GBG (Committee) bill in mid-2024. An initial GBG (Assembly) bill was tabled in July 2024 which was referred to a select sub-committee that held a series of consultations. The revised GBG bill was passed both in the Assembly and Council in March 2025 which now awaits the Governor’s assent. There are misconceptions on what the bill is about, and this is as good a time as any to trace the rationale for its provisions.</p>.<p>The Committee suggested a three-tier structure with wards, multiple corporations and a new Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) at the apex layer. It was built on the principle of deep decentralisation (as envisaged in the spirit of the 74th Amendment) and an innovative GBA layer to help plan, integrate and coordinate the corporations and parastatals such as BWSSB, BESCOM, BDA, BMTC, BMRCL, and the police. The bill which has been passed retains this governance architecture while it differs on the details.</p>.<p>The corporation/ ward set-up is based on the existing BBMP 2020 Act. The Committee’s suggestions (not part of the final GBG bill) included a Mayor in Council/ Cabinet model for the Corporation to ensure greater accountability, no MLAs, a proportional representation for the ward committees empowered significantly in its functions, and a share of incremental property tax to incentivise them. While this would have deepened citizen participation, it is noteworthy that hardly any civil society group spoke up for the Committee’s suggestions regarding the corporation/ ward features. Consequently, there was no wind behind the sails for their implementation.</p>.<p>It is in the setting up of the GBA and claimed violation of the 74th Amendment (including the Metropolitan Planning Committee – MPC) that the passed bill runs into headwinds. The GBA is an innovative layer envisioned to manage a very dysfunctional space with multiple bodies operating as individual fiefdoms with no integration for outcomes. We have a legacy problem inherited through decades of neutering the city corporation by setting up parastatals.</p>.<p><strong>Case for GBA</strong></p>.<p>The GBA’s primary role was to provide a platform for all city agencies (political and bureaucratic) to help plan, integrate and coordinate activities. Each of them would have their respective autonomy and role. Think of it akin to a music conductor with whom you get music; else it is all noise as it is at present. It helps address any inequities in the municipal corporations through directing grants as needed.</p>.<p>The State, over decades, has broken the system. The onus is on it to fix the problem. This is possible only with the Chief Minister at the GBA’s helm since there is no other political representative that oversees the ministries concerned. The Committee’ s report recommends a shift to a mayor as GBA head over a 5-10 year period. The GBA should be seen not as a case of State overreach in municipal matters but a response to an ineffective set-up. A transition is needed over time and at this point, it can only be achieved in this manner. It is certainly not anti-constitutional or violative of the 74th Amendment.</p>.<p>This brings us to the MPC, the ‘claimed’ saviour of the city. Set it up, all will be well, and we will attain urban nirvana? Nothing could be further from the truth but that is for another day. The MPC is certainly needed (though it has not been effective anywhere in the country) and provided for in the GBG bill. It will do the draft development plan for its jurisdiction (greater than the GBG area) based on plan inputs from its constituents. The availability of a GBA layer to facilitate the plan (instead of the BDA) with all stakeholders on the platform will be to the city’s advantage.</p>.<p>We are at a fork in the (potholed) road. We can harp about the alleged unconstitutionality and stay with the status quo or embrace a sliver of hope embedded in the GBG bill with all stakeholders on board the same train, pulling the collective to a better tomorrow. It may not be perfect but for now, it is our best bet.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a member of the Brand Bengaluru Committee. The views here are personal)</em></p>
<p>Stung by the declining quality of life in Bengaluru, the Karnataka government set up a three-member restructuring committee, in 2014, to suggest ways to improve governance of the city. After over 1,000 feedback points and meetings with experts, a set of ten reports and a draft Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) bill was submitted through 2014-18. The findings gathered digital dust.</p>.<p>In 2023, the committee became a four-member Brand Bengaluru Committee which finalised and submitted a GBG (Committee) bill in mid-2024. An initial GBG (Assembly) bill was tabled in July 2024 which was referred to a select sub-committee that held a series of consultations. The revised GBG bill was passed both in the Assembly and Council in March 2025 which now awaits the Governor’s assent. There are misconceptions on what the bill is about, and this is as good a time as any to trace the rationale for its provisions.</p>.<p>The Committee suggested a three-tier structure with wards, multiple corporations and a new Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) at the apex layer. It was built on the principle of deep decentralisation (as envisaged in the spirit of the 74th Amendment) and an innovative GBA layer to help plan, integrate and coordinate the corporations and parastatals such as BWSSB, BESCOM, BDA, BMTC, BMRCL, and the police. The bill which has been passed retains this governance architecture while it differs on the details.</p>.<p>The corporation/ ward set-up is based on the existing BBMP 2020 Act. The Committee’s suggestions (not part of the final GBG bill) included a Mayor in Council/ Cabinet model for the Corporation to ensure greater accountability, no MLAs, a proportional representation for the ward committees empowered significantly in its functions, and a share of incremental property tax to incentivise them. While this would have deepened citizen participation, it is noteworthy that hardly any civil society group spoke up for the Committee’s suggestions regarding the corporation/ ward features. Consequently, there was no wind behind the sails for their implementation.</p>.<p>It is in the setting up of the GBA and claimed violation of the 74th Amendment (including the Metropolitan Planning Committee – MPC) that the passed bill runs into headwinds. The GBA is an innovative layer envisioned to manage a very dysfunctional space with multiple bodies operating as individual fiefdoms with no integration for outcomes. We have a legacy problem inherited through decades of neutering the city corporation by setting up parastatals.</p>.<p><strong>Case for GBA</strong></p>.<p>The GBA’s primary role was to provide a platform for all city agencies (political and bureaucratic) to help plan, integrate and coordinate activities. Each of them would have their respective autonomy and role. Think of it akin to a music conductor with whom you get music; else it is all noise as it is at present. It helps address any inequities in the municipal corporations through directing grants as needed.</p>.<p>The State, over decades, has broken the system. The onus is on it to fix the problem. This is possible only with the Chief Minister at the GBA’s helm since there is no other political representative that oversees the ministries concerned. The Committee’ s report recommends a shift to a mayor as GBA head over a 5-10 year period. The GBA should be seen not as a case of State overreach in municipal matters but a response to an ineffective set-up. A transition is needed over time and at this point, it can only be achieved in this manner. It is certainly not anti-constitutional or violative of the 74th Amendment.</p>.<p>This brings us to the MPC, the ‘claimed’ saviour of the city. Set it up, all will be well, and we will attain urban nirvana? Nothing could be further from the truth but that is for another day. The MPC is certainly needed (though it has not been effective anywhere in the country) and provided for in the GBG bill. It will do the draft development plan for its jurisdiction (greater than the GBG area) based on plan inputs from its constituents. The availability of a GBA layer to facilitate the plan (instead of the BDA) with all stakeholders on the platform will be to the city’s advantage.</p>.<p>We are at a fork in the (potholed) road. We can harp about the alleged unconstitutionality and stay with the status quo or embrace a sliver of hope embedded in the GBG bill with all stakeholders on board the same train, pulling the collective to a better tomorrow. It may not be perfect but for now, it is our best bet.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a member of the Brand Bengaluru Committee. The views here are personal)</em></p>
