Punjab’s move to hand urban planning control to bureaucrats exposes federal fault lines and signals a troubling shift away from democratic urban governance.
Image Source: Deepak Sethi/via Getty Images
In June 2025, the Punjab Council of Ministers approved a proposal to amend the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development (PRTPD) Act. The amendment to Section 29 (3) of the Act enables the appointment of the Chief Secretary of the state as the chairman of all local urban planning and development authorities in Punjab. These include eight authorities—the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA), Greater Mohali Development Authority (GMADA), Greater Ludhiana Development Authority (GLADA), Bathinda Development Authority (BD), Amritsar Development Authority (ADA), Patiala Urban Planning and Development Authority (PDA), Jalandhar Development Authority (JDA), and the Dera Baba Nanak Development Authority (DBNDA). Until now, the Chief Minister (CM) has held the position of chairman of these authorities.
This decision did not go down well with opposition parties. Strong reactions emerged from all quarters, including the Congress, Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). They criticised the amendment as reducing the CM to a mere puppet, subordinated to party bosses in Delhi and accused the move of mortgaging Punjab’s authority. They argued that the CM was no longer in control of urban governance. To them, this was not a policy decision but a hostile takeover directed from Delhi.
The opposition has threatened to challenge the amendment in court if the state government, which holds an absolute majority, pushes it through the legislature.
The opposition also described the move as a silent coup against Punjab’s democracy, relegating elected representatives to the sidelines, with unelected loyalists thrust from above appropriating their powers. The opposition has threatened to challenge the amendment in court if the state government, which holds an absolute majority, pushes it through the legislature.
The government, for its part, defended what it termed a ‘bold reform.’ It further contended that the CM was unable to devote sufficient time to conduct and manage the affairs of these organisations, resulting in decision-making delays. The amendment, it claims, will streamline functioning and ensure faster resolutions. Moreover, the situation is not unique to Punjab, they maintain. The government also pointed to similar governance models and arrangements in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority in Gujarat, as well as authorities in Noida, Meerut, Kanpur, and Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh. All these urban parastatals have a similar administrative arrangement. The change, it maintains, will help standardise governance across all urban development authorities under a uniform, structured framework. Additionally, by inducting the deputy commissioners of districts and municipal commissioners as members of the authorities’ administrative apparatus, it expects improved coordination between district and urban bureaucracies. This, in turn, will ensure that local matters are resolved efficiently at the authority level itself—without the need for higher-level intervention.
The approved amendment, however, is not directly related to urban planning itself; it is fundamentally a governance decision about who heads these development authorities. In this regard, the Punjab government is correct in stating that power continues to reside with the CM. Important decisions made by the Chief Secretary and urban development authorities will still be referred to the state’s Urban Development Department and to the CM, who will retain the final say. Some matters may even need the approval of the state cabinet.
Nonetheless, the Punjab government has drawn comfort from the examples of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh inappropriately. Punjab, with a geographical area of over 50,000 km2 and an estimated population of approximately 31.7 million, is significantly smaller in both area and population than the states cited. Gujarat is approximately four times larger, spanning around 200,000 km2, with an estimated population of 72.7 million, and has more than double the number of urban development authorities. Uttar Pradesh covers roughly 241,00 km2, with an estimated population of 262.1 million, and 27 urban development authorities—more than three times Punjab’s number.
Important decisions made by the Chief Secretary and urban development authorities will still be referred to the state’s Urban Development Department and to the CM, who will retain the final say.
In such states, decentralisation of power makes practical sense due to the administrative scale. Even if the role of chairman had become too onerous for the CM, it would have been more fitting to hand it over to the state urban development minister or any other political functionary rather than an unelected civil servant.
It is also important to note that the governance structure in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh was not altered midstream. It was part of the governance architecture from the outset. In contrast, the decision in Punjab to replace the CM after more than three years in office has raised undue attention and concerns, especially since the matter was made public in advance for a proper debate and deliberation. The objections to the move have been strong, especially given that party bosses in Delhi had reportedly instructed the state’s chief secretary to keep them informed about the developments within the Punjab Development Commission. The bureaucratisation of power in a popularly elected democracy is bound to arouse suspicion when a pattern emerges that suggests the elevation of bureaucracy in key institutions to sidestep democratic practices.
Punjab is the fifth most urbanised state in India and continues to urbanise rapidly. More urban development authorities are expected to be established and gain prominence in the future. These bodies oversee the state’s largest and most economically vibrant urban centres. They manage and control the most valuable land assets in the state and ordain critical regulations/policies on land use, allotment, and development. Evidently, these are not peripheral bodies. They are central to Punjab’s economic future, and merit the active attention of the state’s top political leadership.
The bureaucratisation of power in a popularly elected democracy is bound to arouse suspicion when a pattern emerges that suggests the elevation of bureaucracy in key institutions to sidestep democratic practices.
As a corollary, urban development authorities are creatures not prescribed by the Constitution (seventy-fourth) Amendment Act (74th Amendment). The Constitution mandates the creation of metropolitan planning committees (MPCs) for cities with a population of over one million. These bodies are supposed to have a democratic structure—two-thirds of their members must be elected from among municipal councillors and panchayat members in proportion to population.
This move demonstrates how states continue to sidestep this constitutional mandate and establish urban development authorities with largely nominated members instead of the mandated, popularly constituted MPCs. This underlines the state’s lack of faith in local democracy and a reluctance to empower them. More than an administrative change, the Punjab government’s decision to amend the PRTPD Act and appoint the Chief Secretary as chair of urban development authorities is a rollback of democratic decentralisation. By bypassing elected representatives in favour of bureaucratic control, the state has further distanced itself from the participatory ideals enshrined in the 74th Constitutional Amendment.
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Ramanath Jha is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai. He works on urbanisation — urban sustainability, urban governance and urban planning. Dr. Jha belongs ...
Read More +
PREV
