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
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tejashwi leads Oppn attack in Bihar assembly: ‘Not against roll revision but the process'
The Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls continued to cause stormy scenes at the monsoon session of the Bihar Legislative Assembly for the third day in a row, with the Speaker allowing discussion on the subject after three days of Opposition protest. Speaker Nand Kishor Yadav's decision to allow the discussion came despite Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's objections to it. During the debate, Bihar's Leader of Opposition Tejashwi Yadav questioned the timing, transparency, and documentation requirements for SIR – the Election Commission's contentious exercise to update electoral rolls. 'The Constitution grants the right to vote to every person above 18 years, regardless of wealth or status. This equality must not be infringed,' he said. The Opposition, he insisted, 'wasn't against the SIR itself' but opposed the process. Referring to complaints cited by the Election Commission about non-resident and 'external' voters. 'The Election Commission should work honestly and transparently, but it is not doing so. We strongly oppose and deny this in the House,' he said. 'It is shameful that such a significant drive is going on and yet the Election Commissioner has not addressed the press to clarify their position; instead, information emerges only through unnamed sources.' He also wondered at the 'urgency' of conducting the exercise, pointing out that the last such revision in 2003 took two years to complete. 'If the process is so important, why not start after the Lok Sabha elections? Why was it initiated now, during the monsoon season?' he asked. 'Bihar is at the bottom in terms of essential documents, whether it's a birth or death certificate. Only 2.3% of people have the necessary documents. Now, 11 documents are being demanded which most poor people don't possess. Why aren't Aadhaar, ration cards, or MNREGA cards being accepted, despite Supreme Court suggestions?' This figure includes both 3.5 crore registered workers and around 1 crore unregistered voters who, despite their tenure outside, 'return to Bihar to vote'. 'There is now a risk their names may be deleted from the rolls,' the LOP argued. Addressing allegations about foreign nationals on the rolls, he said: 'The matter is pending before the Supreme Court. In the 780-page affidavit filed by the Election Commission, there is no mention of any Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Myanmar national. Even BJP's over 52,000 Booth Level Agents have never raised such complaints with the Election Commission.' In response, Chief Minister Nitish Kumar accused the Opposition of making electoral rolls revision 'an issue because of their lack of work and upcoming elections'. The RJD too had been in power once, he went on to say. 'Why are you raising these issues now? Your father was chief minister for seven years, then your mother for another seven years, and then you were also deputy chief minister,' Kumar said. 'Look at what your budget used to be earlier, and how much more we've done for everyone now. Today, it's more than Rs 3 lakh crore and the central government is providing a lot of support too… we surveyed Bihar to identify where anything was lacking. Wherever there were gaps, we've addressed them… Whenever there was a need, we made sure the work got done,' he said. He then said: 'Ab mamla hai ki chunav ladna hai to bhai chunav ladiye aur uske band jitna bolna hai bolte rahiye (But now it's about contesting elections. So go contest and then you can say as much as you like).' The situation began to heat up when a comment made by RJD MLA Bhai Virendra caused uproar and led to the house being adjourned until the afternoon session.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
Your Honour, that's misogyny talking
We often witness flashes of patriarchy and misogyny, only to dismiss them as outliers, or view them as symptoms of a society in transition. But when those moments emanate from institutions, we seek remedy - such as the Supreme Court - then it becomes necessary to question them. On Tuesday, while hearing an alimony case, CJI B R Gavai expressed his incredulity that a 'well-educated' woman was demanding a divorce settlement from her husband. His outburst reflects a mindset that cannot fathom the possibility that a woman could have contributed to her husband's wealth and is, thus, a rightful claimant to a share upon the dissolution of their is not the first time that top court judges have made observations that reflect a skewed view. A few months ago, Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim bail to a 23-year-old man accused of rape. By their account, a 40-year-old woman 'is no baby', and her complaint - considered credible by the police - was deficient because 'a single hand can't clap'. Unfortunately, examples of such egregious gender insensitivity veering towards misogyny crop up far too often in the higher stereotypes - more so those rooted in gender - hinder the transformative project of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is guardian of the Constitution, which recognises equality as a right. Not only does the apex court guard the integrity of the Constitution, it also provides a moral compass for society. In 2023, it recognised the need for gender sensitisation, producing a booklet for the legal community with the aim of 'actively challenging and dispelling harmful stereotypes on the basis of gender'. Perhaps it's time for judges to read this publication - so that the courts can live up to their promise.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
SC Cancels Bail Of Woman Superintendent Accused Of Sexual Exploitation Of Patna Protection Home Inmates
The top court has said that the gravity of the allegations and procedural lapses in the bail process warranted intervention under Article 136 of the Constitution The Supreme Court on July 21 set aside a Patna High Court order granting bail to Vandana Gupta, a former superintendent of a protection home in Bihar's Patna, accused of sexually exploiting women inmates, many of whom belonged to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances made it imperative to cancel the bail and direct the accused to surrender within four weeks. The bench observed that the allegations against the accused were grave and, if established, reflected a gross misuse of public office. It was alleged that during her tenure as superintendent of the Uttar Raksha Grih in Gaighat, Patna, Gupta administered intoxicating substances to female inmates, subjected them to sexual exploitation and mental torture, and orchestrated their trafficking to influential individuals under the pretext of protection. The court held that the release of the accused on bail could seriously undermine the trial process by posing a threat to key witnesses. It said that the conduct attributed to the accused was not only a betrayal of the institutional trust placed in her but also a possible obstruction to justice, especially considering her reinstatement to a similar position in another protection home following her release. The court was also critical of the procedural irregularity committed by the High Court in granting bail without compliance with Section 15A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates that notice be issued to the victim before deciding a bail application in cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act. The bench held that the appellant-victim had not been made a party in the High Court proceedings, thereby denying her the right to be heard. Referring to the precedent laid down in Shabeen Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (2025), the Supreme Court reiterated that cryptic bail orders, especially in serious matters involving abuse of power and violation of fundamental rights, cannot be allowed to stand. The bench stated that granting bail without assigning proper reasons in such cases not only offends judicial discipline but also has the potential to affect public confidence in the administration of justice. The bench emphasised that while cancellation of bail is not to be exercised routinely, it is justified where the nature of allegations shakes the conscience of the court and the liberty of the accused poses a threat to the integrity of the trial. The court observed that the nature of offences, coupled with the accused's reinstatement, indicated her influence within the administrative structure, raising concerns about witness tampering and fair trial. The FIR in the case was registered in 2022 following the intervention of the Patna High Court, which had taken suo motu cognisance based on a media report highlighting the ordeal of the inmates. The investigation was also monitored by the High Court. The appellant-victim contended that the accused deliberately used her official position to exploit women inmates and facilitated their abuse by powerful outsiders. According to statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, several women disclosed being sent out of the institution for non-consensual sexual acts and, in case of resistance, were drugged and assaulted within the premises. Further allegations pointed to unidentified men gaining access to the home and exploiting the inmates in collusion with the staff. After securing bail, Gupta was reportedly given charge of another protection home, a decision which the court noted demonstrated administrative complicity. While the State supported the victim's plea, the standing counsel was unable to justify the government's action in reinstating the accused despite pending charges of serious misconduct and criminal offences. In defence, Gupta's counsel argued that she had spent nearly 500 days in custody since her arrest on August 27, 2022, and that a detailed evaluation of evidence at the bail stage could prejudice the pending trial. The court, however, dismissed these arguments, holding that the gravity of the allegations and the procedural flaws in the HC's order required urgent correction. Accordingly, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to quash the High Court's bail order dated January 18, 2024. It also directed that adequate protection and support be extended to all victims involved in the case by the trial court and local administration. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : patna high court sexual exploitation supreme court view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
