Citizens' Groups Raise Alarm Over Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, Mull Legal Challenge
In a statement issued on Thursday, the group expressed dismay over the Governor's assent to the bill, stating that the law has been enacted 'despite strong objections from citizens and civil groups,' and that its provisions undermine the very spirit of democratic decentralisation enshrined in the Constitution.
'The objections were very serious, especially about violations of the Constitution and lack of due process, and lack of public consultation,' the statement read. 'This law goes against the spirit and letter of the 74th Amendment/Nagarpalika Act 1992, which is the very essence of our democracy.'
The 74th Constitutional Amendment, passed in 1992, is widely regarded as a cornerstone of urban democratic governance in India. It mandates the creation of elected municipal bodies and devolution of powers, functions, and finances to urban local governments. Critics of the new Bengaluru legislation argue that it centralises authority, reduces the role of elected representatives, and gives greater control to the state government and bureaucracy.
The Bengaluru Town Hall movement, comprising civic activists, urban planners, legal professionals, and residents' welfare associations, has announced that it is actively studying legal options to challenge the newly enacted law. A team is being constituted to explore the viability of a legal recourse.
'We are constituting a team to pursue this. We shall announce our plans shortly,' said Sandeep Anirudhan and Prakash Belawadi in a press release issued today by the BTH.
The Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024, was introduced by the state government with the stated aim of streamlining administration and improving service delivery in the rapidly growing metropolitan area. However, activists contend that the process of drafting and passing the bill lacked adequate public consultation and transparency.
'Any change of this scale to the governance structure of a city like Bengaluru must be subject to wide-ranging consultations, involving citizens, local representatives, and experts,' said a senior member of the Town Hall movement, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'Instead, the bill was rushed through without hearing the voices of the people who live and work in this city.'
Legal scholars and constitutional experts have also weighed in, with some raising red flags about the bill's compatibility with the framework laid down by the 74th Amendment. If a legal challenge is mounted, the outcome could have far-reaching implications not just for Bengaluru but for urban governance models across India.
Meanwhile, civic activists are calling for increased public awareness and mobilisation to resist what they describe as 'an erosion of local self-governance.' Discussions are also underway for a citywide campaign to educate citizens about the impact of the new law on urban democracy.
As Bengaluru continues to grapple with complex urban challenges — from mobility and housing to waste management and water supply — the controversy over the governance bill has sharpened the debate around who truly governs the city, and how.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
44 minutes ago
- Hans India
Word ‘secularism' to stay: Mayawati welcomes Centre's assurance
Lucknow: Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati on Friday welcomed Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal's statement in Parliament, ruling out any intent to remove words like 'secularism' from the Constitution's Preamble. In a post on X, the former Uttar Pradesh chief minister described Meghwal's assurance as 'appropriate and commendable' and a 'relief' for the BSP as well as people against any 'unjustified change or tampering' with the Constitution drafted by Dr B R Ambedkar. She reiterated that Ambedkar crafted the Constitution with the vision of ensuring equal respect for all religions and establishing an egalitarian society, a vision clearly reflected throughout the document. In a written reply, Law Minister Meghwal on Thursday said while there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles on the removal of the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble, 'no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government' regarding amendment to these terms. 'The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble and any such change will require thorough deliberations and broad consensus,' said the minister. Mayawati emphasised that the Constitution's essence of 'unity in diversity' provides India, the most populous country, with an unparalleled global identity as various religions and diverse cultures dwell here. She concluded by saying that it is a 'good thing' that the Centre has clarified its position and expressed hope that it will remain firm on its stand and not yield to any external pressure.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
"SIR is in accordance with Constitution.. Why is the opposition afraid?" Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan
Union Minister Rajiv Ranjan (Lalan) Singh on Friday supported the Election Commission 's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists, emphasizing its role in ensuring fair elections. He argued that the process, aimed at removing non-citizens, duplicate voters, and those permanently residing abroad from the voter list, is constitutional and vital for strengthening democracy. Singh questioned the opposition's resistance, highlighting public support for the initiative. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Cybersecurity Others Technology Product Management others Leadership Project Management Public Policy Degree Finance Artificial Intelligence healthcare Management CXO Data Science Digital Marketing Design Thinking Data Analytics Operations Management PGDM MBA Healthcare Data Science MCA Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months MIT xPRO CERT-MIT xPRO PGC in Cybersecurity Starts on undefined Get Details Speaking to mediapersons, Minister Ranjan said, "Should elections be held with fake voters? The Election Commission's decision is that a special intensive revision will be conducted, under which individuals who are not citizens of this country will not be eligible to vote. The names of those registered as voters in two places will be removed. Why should the names of those permanently residing abroad remain on the voter list here?The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is in accordance with the Constitution. It will strengthen the roots of democracy, and therefore, it is necessary. The country's voters also support this... Why are you (the opposition) afraid?" by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Dubai villas | search ads Get Deals Undo Reacting to the same issue, Union Minister Pralhad Joshi said questions about the Election Commission and Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) are raised only when they fear losing polls. Joshi said similar issues had come up in the past too, including after the Maharashtra elections, and added that the Congress is making up excuses ahead of an imminent defeat. Live Events "SIR has happened before as well. It also started after Rahul Gandhi wrote a letter to the Election Commission after the Maharashtra Elections. When they lose, they doubt the EC, EVM... They talked about the constituency of Karnataka. Was everything alright during the 2023 (Karnataka) elections?... In 2024, Siddaramaiah's government was in power, if there's any discrepancy, ask him... They claim to boycott elections (Bihar) because they know they will lose..." Joshi said. Earlier on Friday, MPs from the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) protested against the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls in poll-bound Bihar. The protest, which entered its fifth consecutive day, was held at Parliament's Makar Dwar. Several senior Congress leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, and party leader Priyanka Gandhi, also participated in the protest. The MPs marched from the Gandhi statue on the Parliament premises ahead of the start of the day's session. The MPs were seen carrying multiple posters and a big banner which read "SIR- Attack on Democracy." The INDIA bloc MPs, at the Parliament premises, raised slogans against the Centre, chanting "Modi sarkar down down" and "Stop the attack on democracy." The MPs also tore down the posters in a symbolic gesture of rejecting the Bihar SIR. Speaking to reporters before the protest, Kharge said, "We are fighting against that only (Special Intensive Revision exercise)."
The Print
3 hours ago
- The Print
Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism
Mrs Gandhi and Modi took over in completely different circumstances. There was also the differential in political capital they began with. Mrs Gandhi had not won an election in 1966. She was a convenient compromise after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. She didn't help her cause by looking overawed in Parliament early on, and socialist Ram Manohar Lohia dismissed her as a 'goongi gudiya' (a doll who didn't speak). She had also inherited a broken economy. The growth rate in 1965 was negative, -2.6 percent in fact. The triple blow of a war, droughts, food shortages and instability, and the deaths of two Prime Ministers in harness within 19 months had weakened India. First of all, we need to look at the larger political realities in which each took over power and the challenges to their authority. Then we will assess their record across four dimensions: politics, strategic and foreign affairs, the economy, and nationalism. On the day Narendra Modi won his third term in June, 2024, it was inevitable that this year, he would become India's second longest serving Prime Minister in consecutive terms, surpassing Indira Gandhi (24 January, 1966 to 24 March, 1977). It also became inevitable, therefore, that around this time in 2025, the season of Modi vs Indira comparisons will begin. Let me be the first, or among the first, off the block. The picture for Modi in 2014 was the exact opposite. He won a majority, the first in India after 30 years, and was his party's chosen candidate; the economy was averaging a robust 6.5 percent growth across the preceding 15 years. His was a peaceful, planned, predictable electoral transition. The degree of difficulty on his first day in power was way lower than Mrs Gandhi's, just as his political capital was enormously higher. It is also important to underline that Mrs Gandhi's 11th year wasn't electorally earned, but self-gifted by mauling the Constitution in a Parliament where she had a brute majority (Congress was 352 out of 518) and the Opposition in jail. In contrast, Modi's third term was earned through general elections, though he fell short of a majority this time. His 11 years have seen no challenge, either within his party or from the Opposition. The global situation has also mostly remained stable and favourable, until the arrival of Trump 2.0. Also Read: RSS chief Bhagwat draws the line at 75. India's politics stares at the Modi Exception Now, the comparisons across the four dimensions we listed. On domestic politics, the first question is: who's been the strongest Prime Minister of India, Modi or Indira? The rest don't count. While Mrs Gandhi redefined her politics in an ideology (deep-pink socialist) first out of compulsion and then preference, Modi was born, dyed and seasoned in his (saffron). Mrs Gandhi's power ebbed and peaked with the times. Modi's has almost been constant, barring the few months of hard dip after the 240 seats of 2024. Even at 240 now, one challenge he need not bother about is from within his party. He's marginalised all, replacing the state satraps with unknown lightweights. That isn't so different from Mrs Gandhi. On ruthlessness, therefore, they are equally matched. On dealing with the Opposition and free speech, the Emergency will be a hard act to match even if somebody—God forbid—wished to do so. On the respect for institutions, the competition is tough, like a dead heat. For convenience, let's limit ourselves to just one institution: the Rashtrapati. With V.V. Giri, Mrs Gandhi reduced the job to that of a porcelain president: a fragile, ornamental object expected to do nothing except sign on the dotted line. The Modi era presidents have been of a piece with those. Modi rose with the power of a '56-inch chest', Mrs Gandhi was often described in times innocent of political correctness as the only man in her Cabinet. Both lived up to these propositions. With Mrs Gandhi, we saw another manifestation of political skill, out of power and back again in 1977-84. But that period is out of the syllabus in this 11-year comparison. Also Read: One prime minister's 19-month legacy is bigger than another's Emergency An important question is who kept India's cohesion better. Mrs Gandhi ruthlessly fought insurgencies in Mizoram and Nagaland. Her troubles on this score came post-1980. Modi has made a dramatic improvement in the Kashmir Valley, and continued with normalisation in the Northeast. But Manipur is an unending failure. A big positive is the near destruction of the Maoists in east-central tribal India. This dovetails neatly into strategic and foreign affairs. Mrs Gandhi's 11 years were across the peak of the Cold War. She signed a treaty with the Soviet Union with a cleverly drafted mutual security clause, endured the Nixon-Kissinger tilt to China, and deftly navigated the narrow spaces still available to India. Modi started out with a 'friends with all' approach but Pakistan-China realities soon caught up with personalised diplomacy. Mrs Gandhi announced India's nuclear status in 1974 (Pokhran-1) but it took Modi in 2019 (Balakot) and in 2025 (Operation Sindoor) to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff. That's a big plus in his corner. As things soured in the neighbourhood, India warmed up to the US/West and then the complexity of Ukraine arose. This gave rise to multi-alignment. The Trump bull has trampled all over this China shop. Pakistan is playing the US and China as it did in 1971. And like Mrs Gandhi then, Modi has to look for alternatives, but then, the Soviet Union is long gone. His predicament is tougher than Mrs Gandhi's in 1971, but India is enormously stronger. The economy is where we might have expected to see many contrasts, but surprisingly, there are many similarities, too. Modi came to power promising to be the exact opposite of Mrs Gandhi, asserting that it's no business of the government to be in business. But on many basic instincts, he's emulated her. The larger, if enormously more efficient distributive politics, for example. An abiding commitment to the public sector instead of privatisation. Even this year, the budget allocated Rs 5 trillion for fresh investments in PSUs. Compare that with our defence budget, Rs 6.81 trillion. Modi has brought in some significant reform—digital payments, GST and the bankruptcy code. Many others, from mining to manufacturing and electricity economics, are meandering. In his first and second terms, Modi attempted some audacious reform—land acquisition, farm and labour reform laws, lateral entry into civil services. All have been given up now. Until Trump came to power, Modi seemed settled into the 6-6.5 percent figure, which we'd risk calling the Hindutva rate of growth. The logic: a politics driven by Hindu identity and polarisation would win elections with 6-6.5 percent risk-free. The Trump arm-twisting and the resultant free trade agreements have rocked that leisurely cruise. Let's see if this can force fresh reform at gunpoint. And finally, how do we compare the two greatest proponents of employing nationalism in their politics? For Mrs Gandhi the backdrop was multiple wars between 1962 and 1971. India was already a jai jawan, jai kisan country. The liberation of Bangladesh, Green Revolution and non-aligned world's adulation fuelled her nationalism. Modi's nationalism is more muscular, in military livery. We can't prejudge the consequences of a commitment trap in promising to respond militarily to a terror act and leave it to historians to reflect on the consequences of such strategic predictability. Under Modi, a new Hinduised nationalism has emerged. While this has united a critical mass of Hindus to keep him secure, it has also created divisions. India's adversaries would be tempted to run a dagger through these. We've seen the Pakistanis try that not just with our Muslims but also the Sikhs, especially during Operation Sindoor. Also Read: You can put words in Mrs Gandhi's mouth & get away. But too much fiction, and you mess with Bhindranwale
