Arguments are being advanced for and against the trifurcation of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as one single entity to deliver good governance in the megacity.
On 22 March 2022, the Union Cabinet gave its consent to a bill seeking the merger of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, and East Delhi Municipal Corporation to create a single, unified municipal corporation for the megacity—the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The bill called The Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2022 was thereafter endorsed by both houses of the Parliament. The Bill has now been stamped with approval by the President of India, thereby, making it an Act that will come into force once it is published in the official gazette. The merger marks a return to the situation that prevailed before the trifurcation in 2011 when the Delhi Municipal Corporation combined the physical jurisdictions of the three cited municipal bodies. The new Act undoes the division brought about by the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011. It has set into motion processes that will take some time to complete before elections to the unified municipal corporation could be held. In the interim, the Central government would have to appoint a special officer to carry on the affairs of the combined Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The Act has foreseen this eventuality and provided for such an appointment.
The merger marks a return to the situation that prevailed before the trifurcation in 2011 when the Delhi Municipal Corporation combined the physical jurisdictions of the three cited municipal bodies.
Whilst the bill was under discussion in the Parliament, it met with serious opposition from many of the political parties in the Lok Sabha. They questioned both the timing and the intent behind the move. However, the government gave its reasons on the floor of the House and argued that the merger was in the best interests of Delhi’s good governance. The objective of this article is to step aside from the political controversy surrounding the matter and make a dispassionate assessment of the decision. For this purpose, it is necessary to start by looking at the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2011, which led to the trifurcation of the Delhi Municipal Corporation.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act 2011 stated the causes behind the trifurcation. It stated that the state of basic services in Delhi was constantly deteriorating. Several committees had looked at the problem and had advised that the monolithic Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) may be abolished and replaced by several compact municipalities. The committees included the Balakrishnan Committee (1989), the Virendra Prakash Committee (2001), and the recommendations of the Group of Ministers (GOM). All of them were unanimously in favour of splitting up the MCD. They differed merely on the number of smaller corporations that should be created.
On the other hand, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2022 Act presents arguments against the trifurcation and offers reasons for the merger. In its assessment, the principal objective of efficient delivery of civic services through three municipal entities was not achieved. It found splitting up Delhi’s municipal functioning “uneven in terms of territorial divisions and revenue-generating potential. As a result, there was a huge gap in the resources available to the three corporations compared to their obligations.” The three corporations landed in financial difficulties and faced issues regarding salary payments and the provision of retirement benefits to municipal employees. Frequent strikes, issues of cleanliness, and failure to maintain civic services were the consequences.
Several committees had looked at the problem and had advised that the monolithic Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) may be abolished and replaced by several compact municipalities.
In the cited background, the 2022 Act seeks to (i) unify the three municipal corporations into a single, integrated, well-equipped entity; (ii) ensure a robust mechanism for synergised and strategic planning and optimal utilisation of resources; and (iii) bring about greater transparency, improved governance, and more efficient delivery of civic services for the people of Delhi. This was especially vital in the country’s capital. Given the city’s unique status, “it cannot be subjected to vagaries of financial hardship and functional uncertainties.”
The issue is whether merging two or more municipal bodies into a single larger entity works towards greater governance gains or creates a megacity that is difficult to govern. Opinion appears divided on the matter. Valid arguments can be advanced on both sides as the two pieces of legislation have sought to press. Let us look at some of the negatives that could emerge on account of the merger. Smaller municipalities achieve greater decentralisation—one of the key hallmarks of good governance. There is also a larger voice for the citizens and greater accountability towards them. Citizens would find it easier to give inputs and impact decisions since the scene of decision-making is closer to them. The less accessible the centre of decision-making is, the less impactful the individual citizen becomes. There is also evidence that larger municipal bodies tend to suffer from ‘bureaucratic congestion’—the propensity of local bureaucracy to multiply. In a sense, therefore, the 2011 Amendment was right in pointing out that decentralisation through trifurcation would bring about better delivery of civic services.
Equally valid are the arguments on the side of unification. A larger municipal corporation commands greater financial and technical ability that are required to manage megacities, as well as to go out in the market to negotiate debt for infrastructure. The principle of economies of scale is better served if a contiguous population is together in one unified entity. As a consequence, there are likely to be lower costs per unit. Furthermore, administrative overheads are likely to get reduced, unlike in the case of multiple municipal bodies that need to have a complete set of administrative apparatus.
Although a unified municipal edifice gives certain decided advantages, the challenge is how to weave the advantages of democratic decentralisation into the municipal fabric.
Whilst all the points advanced above have merit, we need to remember that in a very large city, populations are contiguous and citizens live and transact business as a single whole. Furthermore, certain services are provided from sources that are common and there are aspects of a very large city that need a unified architecture and operation. In such a situation, internal multiple divisions that provide each municipal unit with total and independent functioning are in some ways unsound. For instance, major transportation routes—trunk roads, metro, and bus services—must be planned in unison. So is the overall land use plan and the distribution of resources such as water. Apart from planning, any financial investment required to be made in any major infrastructure would be better served if the money is pooled into one kitty.
This article is not questioning the theory repeatedly advanced by this author that megacities are not the right way to go. However, we are here at the point of city governance where a megacity is already a fait accompli, unlikely to be undone through the Chinese kind of exercise in city bariatrics attempted in Beijing and Shanghai. However, although a unified municipal edifice gives certain decided advantages, the challenge is how to weave the advantages of democratic decentralisation into the municipal fabric. In essence, this means putting up a system whereby decisions are taken at the level of government that is closest to the people. In this regard, the Constitution shows the way through the establishment of ward committees. This could be taken further down through greater decentralisation up to each electoral ward. This would essentially mean that all decisions that have a pan-city bearing get taken in the town hall. Subjects that have a region-wide relevance will be zonally decided in the wards committees. However, decisions that are entirely local and impact only a single electoral ward would be taken at the electoral ward level. Unfortunately, the 2022 bill stops short of the kind of decentralisation that municipalities must aim at to fulfill the requirements of good democratic governance.
While the megacity of Delhi is a fait accompli in terms of its demography, its governance architecture can always be tweaked through processes of democratic decentralisation, transparency, and accountability, thereby combining the advantages of size on the one hand and the benefits of local decision-making on the other. That initiative could still be taken and could set an example for other megacities to emulate.
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
