logo
Greater Bengaluru Authority takes over as BMLTA's role in urban mobility diminishes, experts warn of consequences

Greater Bengaluru Authority takes over as BMLTA's role in urban mobility diminishes, experts warn of consequences

Indian Express29-04-2025
With Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot giving assent to the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill (GBGB) 2024, the IT capital is set to usher in the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), which has sweeping powers to streamline governance in the urban region. However, urban mobility experts and civic groups have pointed out that the transformation comes at the cost of diluting the powers of an autonomous body such as the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority (BMLTA) that oversees planning and coordinating transport in the Bengaluru Metropolitan Area.
More than two years have passed since BMLTA was notified, yet the Act remains on paper, with no rules being framed or no members being formally appointed.
The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBGA) positions the GBA as the apex body for urban governance, with binding authority over agencies like the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC), Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), and other urban development agencies previously coordinated by the BMLTA.
Satya Arikutharam, urban mobility expert, said, 'The GBGA dilutes the core functions of BMLTA and makes it an ineffective institute even before its establishment. The city will miss the rigorous and independent review specified under Section 19 of BMLTA before approval for major urban transport projects.'
GBGA explicitly transfers several BMLTA provisions to the GBA. Under its planning functions, the GBA is designated as the 'Planning Authority' for the Greater Bengaluru area under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. This includes approving layouts and ensuring compliance with the master plan, roles that previously intersected with the BMLTA's efforts to align land use with transport planning. The GBA's oversight of the Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning Committee (BMPC), chaired by the Chief Minister, further consolidates its planning authority, potentially marginalising the BMLTA's input in metropolitan transport strategies.
The GBA, chaired by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, is tasked with overseeing up to seven municipal corporations carved out of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Its functions span administrative control, urban planning, coordination of public authorities, and execution of major infrastructure projects, including mobility plans.
Major infrastructure projects, including vehicular tunnels proposed under the Brand Bengaluru initiative, upcoming Metro networks, and other urban infrastructure plans, require approval from BMLTA as specified under Section 19 of the Act. Under Section 19, the Act ensures that the authority will have the power to approve all major urban transport projects proposed from the perspective of consistency with the Comprehensive Mobility Plan and in a time-bound manner. It further states that no authority, agency, or department under the state government shall initiate any public, private, or public-private partnership project concerning urban mobility without obtaining prior approval of the authority.
BBMP, in its government order in September 2024, acknowledges the approval of BMLTA for an underground vehicular tunnel connecting Hebbal and Silk Board and other proposed elevated corridors.
Experts point out that with the establishment of a 'centralised' authority like GBA, it assumes significant responsibilities previously held by the BMLTA, such as formulating mobility plans and coordinating agencies like BMTC, BMRCL, Urban Development department and other agencies.
No clear sequence of process on land use: Experts
Arikutharam said that as per GBGA coordination between BMRCL and BMTC, the preparation of Mobility Plan, and formulation of major infrastructure projects – all core BMLTA functions – will now be undertaken by Greater Bengaluru Authority. 'This has serious negative consequences for sustainable urban mobility as GBA is designed for unfettered real estate development,' he pointed out.
Further, GBA integrates and supervises public authorities such as BMTC, BMRCL, and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), issuing binding directions to streamline municipal and transport activities, and provisions that BMLTA was also entrusted with.
GBA also formulates and executes major infrastructural projects, including mobility-related plans (e.g., roads, tunnels), directly or through Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), coming close on the heels of the functions of an autonomous BMLTA. BMLTA also has the power to issue directives to transport agencies to align operations with the CMP goals and sustainable mobility objectives.
The GBA's ability to establish Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) also overlaps with the BMLTA's initiatives for technology-driven mobility solutions.
A Krishna Prashanth, member at CIVIC Bangalore, said, 'From a constitutional and legal standpoint BMLTA is essentially a planning body that helps build a transit-oriented development plan coupled with land use plan. When GBA assumes this role, the transport plan will not hold any value. The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act is unclear on the process of implementing transport and mobility projects. There is no clear sequence of process as to who will assess the land use, waste management, and other aspects.'
Secondly, he said, the previous Finance Commission mandated that BMLTA works in line with the Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC), which is democratic and consultative. 'However, GBA neither allies with this nor any urban transport policy envisioned by the central government. Moreover, it is not clear where BMLTA sits in the large scheme of things under GBA,' he said.
However, an officer in the state government, on condition of anonymity, told The Indian Express that, 'BMLTA is not dropped, it will be formally constituted in the coming days. However, with GBA, a lot of the latter's functions align with those of BMLTA. Hence, there is a conflict of interest.'
According to Sandeep Anirudhan, convenor of Citizens' Agenda for Bengaluru, the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill is poorly drafted and undermines critical planning institutions. 'The constitutionally mandated Metropolitan Planning Committee remains defunct after 33 years, and now its role is usurped by the new Greater Bengaluru Authority. Similarly, the BMLTA, meant to unify transport planning, is sidelined—its executive head is merely an invitee without voting rights. This pattern of creating and then undermining institutions spells disaster, as vested interests exploit the city, pushing Bengaluru into unplanned, unsustainable collapse,' Anirudhan remarked.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted
Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted

India.com

time24 minutes ago

  • India.com

Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted

Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused, including BJP leader Pragya Thakur, acquitted Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted a By Nivedita Dash Edited by Nivedita Dash Advertisement Malegaon blast verdict: 17 years later, all seven accused including BJP leader Pragya Thakur acquitted Malegaon blast verdict: Almost 17 years after a blast killed six persons and left more than 100 injured in Maharashtra's communally sensitive Malegaon town, a special NIA court on Thursday acquitted all the accused including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. Seven accused, including BJP leader and former MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, were facing trial in the case for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code. Advertisement === Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni were the other accused in the case. What the court said? Advertisement === The court instructed that the families of all six victims of the blast will be given Rs 2 lakh each, and all injured victims will be given Rs 50,000 as compensation. The court said: UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective. Abhinav Bharat organisation was used as a common reference by the prosecution. There is no evidence that the money of the Abhinav Bharat was used for terror activities. Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. The court has come to the conclusion that the injured people were not 101 but 95 only, and there was manipulation in some medical certificates. What was the case? Six persons were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008. In its final argument, the NIA submitted that the blast in Malegaon – a town with a sizable Muslim population – was orchestrated by the conspirators to terrorise a section of Muslim community, disrupt essential services, create communal tensions, and threaten the state's internal security. The NIA has said that based on 'relevant, admissible, cogent, trustworthy, wholly reliable and proved evidence' it 'conclusively and cogently' established the crucial circumstances to form a complete chain of events. The charges comprised UAPA sections 16 (committing terrorist act) and 18 (conspiring to commit terrorist act) and various IPC sections, including 120 (b) (criminal conspiracy), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 153 (a) (promoting enmity between two religious groups).

"Anti-Terror Law UAPA Can't Be Invoked": What Court Said In Malegaon Verdict
"Anti-Terror Law UAPA Can't Be Invoked": What Court Said In Malegaon Verdict

NDTV

time24 minutes ago

  • NDTV

"Anti-Terror Law UAPA Can't Be Invoked": What Court Said In Malegaon Verdict

New Delhi: All seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and former Army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, have been acquitted by a special NIA court in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which six people died and may were injured. The Special NIA court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case; accused deserve benefit of doubt. They have been acquitted of all charges of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act and other charges. The blast took place on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. The explosion occurred during the month of Ramzan and just before the festival of Navratri. Here are the 5 big things court said while delivering the verdict: Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that a bomb was placed in that motorcycle. Injured count not 101, but 95. Even medical certificates were manipulated. Though RDX was brought and used is the allegation, there is no evidence of storage of RDX in Lt Colonel Purohit's house and no evidence to show he assembled it. The motorcycle chassis number was wiped out and the engine number is under doubt. There is no evidence to show Pragya Thakur is the owner and was in possession of the bike. No doubt terror has no religion, but conviction cannot happen based on the evidence presented. UAPA will not be invoked in this case as sanction was not taken as per rules. Both the sanction orders of the UAPA in the case are defective.

All seven accused acquitted in 2008 Malegaon blast case by NIA court
All seven accused acquitted in 2008 Malegaon blast case by NIA court

Hans India

time24 minutes ago

  • Hans India

All seven accused acquitted in 2008 Malegaon blast case by NIA court

New Delhi: In a significant judgment, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court on Thursday acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, including BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit. The court dropped all charges against the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing a lack of sufficient evidence. The blast occurred on September 29, 2008, when a bomb strapped to a motorcycle exploded near the Bhikku Chowk mosque in Malegaon city of Nashik district, Maharashtra. The explosion, which took place during the holy month of Ramzan and just days before the Hindu festival of Navratri, claimed six lives and injured over 100 people in the communally sensitive town. After nearly 17 years of legal proceedings, the verdict was delivered in a packed courtroom with all the accused present, as directed earlier by the court. The court also ordered compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the families of each of the six deceased and Rs 50,000 for every injured victim. The trial saw a prolonged legal process involving a voluminous case file exceeding one lakh pages. Hearings concluded in April this year, and the court had reserved its judgment on April 19. Given the scale and complexity of the case, the court took additional time to scrutinise all the material before announcing its verdict. Throughout the trial, the prosecution examined 323 witnesses, though 34 of them turned hostile, significantly weakening the prosecution's case. Initially, the investigation was conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which arrested the accused and filed the first charge sheet. However, in 2011, the probe was transferred to the NIA. In 2016, the NIA filed a supplementary charge sheet dropping charges against several accused, including Sadhvi Pragya, citing insufficient evidence to prosecute them under stringent anti-terror laws. All accused were out on bail during the trial. They were facing serious charges, including conspiracy, murder, and use of explosives under UAPA and IPC provisions.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store