The Greater Bengaluru Act needs a course correction

The objective of the Greater Bengaluru Act, 2025, as stated in its preamble, is to “improve the quality of life of all citizens by instituting a decentralised, participative, efficient and equitable governance framework for Bengaluru”.

Its major proposals include:

1) Establishing a Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) to plan, coordinate and oversee the execution and administration of plans, schemes and major projects across the Greater Bengaluru area.

2) Creating no more than seven city corporations within the GBA’s jurisdiction and increasing the mayor’s term from 12 months to 30 months. 

3) Empowering ward committees to act as the basic units of urban governance and promote community participation. 

4) Constituting a Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC). 

Unfortunately, the government’s approach to implementing the Act runs counter to its stated objectives. First, it contravenes the Constitution’s mandate to devolve powers to urban local bodies (ULBs). Instead of decentralising, the creation of the GBA centralises powers in a “super authority” over the elected ULBs. Chaired by the chief minister, with the minister for Bengaluru and others representing GBA as members, it resembles a mini-cabinet for the capital. Even with the mayors of the corporations, CEOs from civic authorities and a few experts included, it will remain a largely unelected, state-level body. The GBA will take over the statutory powers and functions of the city planning authority, now vested in the BDA, and exercise supervisory control over public authorities such as the BDA, BWSSB, BMTC, and BMRCL.

Secondly, splitting the BBMP into seven municipal corporations risks greater confusion and disruption. While reducing the vast and unwieldy area of the existing corporation is a good idea, the rationale behind the territorial demarcation is unclear. The official proposal reportedly envisaged five corporations – Bengaluru West, South, North, East and Central -- but media reports now speak of seven.

Thirdly, with most powers vested in the GBA, the city corporations, mayors and councillors elected to govern Bengaluru will be left with little beyond tax collection, cleaning the city, garbage disposal, pothole filling, and taking the blame for unresolved civic grievances.

Alternative Model

Planning Authority: Having both the GBA and MPC is unnecessary; they can be merged. The constitutional body -- the MPC -- should be retained, with the GBA abolished. The MPC can perform statutory planning functions and prepare the development plan for the metropolitan area. As the chief minister already chairs both bodies, and their memberships overlap significantly, merging them would avoid duplication. The statutory master plan -- covering land use, zoning regulations and development proposals -- must align with the constitutionally mandated development plan. The MPC could be renamed the Metropolitan Planning and Coordination Authority.  Urban planning, long neglected, has driven much of Bengaluru’s chaotic growth. This is an opportunity to adopt a dynamic planning model that addresses present and future needs in a city celebrated as a global technology hub. Economic, social, environmental and technological dimensions must be integrated into a single plan, managed by one authority that understands Bengaluru’s unique requirements. 

Splitting BBMP: The core city and its adjoining developed areas should remain one unit. The Central Business District (CBD) concept has long been diluted, with commercial functions decentralised and extensions such as Jayanagar, JP Nagar, Banashankari, Indiranagar, and RT Nagar becoming fully developed. Smaller corporations could be created beyond this core-developed zone, in compact, easily demarcated areas -- such as Rajarajeswarinagar, Yelahanka, and Yeshwantpur. Given Bengaluru’s population of around 14 million, the core-developed area may hold 7-8 million people, while smaller corporations could each serve about 600,000-700,000 residents. A proper study, with alternative models and full public consultation, is essential. The current plan, prepared hastily and without public consultation, should be replaced with a well-conceived model supported by all stakeholders.

Decentralisation: Globally, cities are moving towards greater decentralisation for more effective city governance --whether in Brazil, Indonesia or global cities like London, New York and Tokyo. Even in China, governance is highly decentralised, allowing local solutions to local problems. In many democracies, mayors are directly elected and vested with the authority and responsibility to deliver results. Bengaluru could begin with the elected mayoral system in smaller corporations, granting local bodies real autonomy to craft solutions to their problems. Ward committees under the GBA Act lack autonomy and require approvals for almost every function.

In the 1998 general election, major political parties promised decentralisation. The Congress declared its belief in a “strong Centre, strong states and strong Panchayats and Nagarapalikas”, calling the latter the “first tier of democracy”. The current Congress government in Karnataka should recall this commitment and strengthen this “first tier of democracy” in the state capital. Municipal councillors are as much representatives of the people as MLAs and MPs, each serving within their own sphere of democratic governance. 

It is not too late to amend the GBA Act before the long-delayed municipal elections are held.

(The writer is a former chief secretary, Government of Karnataka)