State dominance continues to define urban governance, limiting the authority of elected municipal councils
On 15 January 2025, the Maharashtra State Election Commission (SEC) conducted elections across 29 municipal corporations to elect a body of local councillors through popular vote. Among the important municipal corporations were Pune, Nagpur, Thane, Nashik, and most significantly, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The elections comprised a total of 2,869 seats across 893 wards with an electorate of 34.8 million voters. The councillors, also known as corporators in the state, are elected from local government constituencies, forming the general body—the apex municipal decision-making body. In due course, the mayor, deputy mayor, and the chairmen of municipal committees are indirectly elected by the elected councillors. This would also bring to an end the rule of the administrator in each of these municipal corporations. After the end of the five-year term, the municipal corporations are placed under the charge of state-appointed administrators selected from the Indian Administrative Service.
The re-election of popular bodies to local government at least endsthe situation in which an explicit constitutional provision was held in prolonged abeyance.
This was despite the Constitution (74th Amendment)Act, 1992, where Article 243U(3) states that “An election to constitute a Municipality shall be completed—(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in clause (1); (b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of its dissolution.”This constitutional provision was disregarded, as noted above.. In the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), an administrator remained in office from March 2022 until January 2026, a period of nearly four years. This was the longest such tenure in the corporation’s history. The delayed elections were primarily due to litigation over reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and ward delimitation. The re-election of popular bodies to local government at least endsthe situation in which an explicit constitutional provision was held in prolonged abeyance.
The municipal corporations in India have a three-tier governance structure. At the apex is the municipal corporation, comprising all the elected councillors within the area of the urban local body (ULB). Each councillor, in addition to representing his or her electoral ward, sits in the meetings of the municipal corporation, participating in the deliberations and voting on policy. The municipal corporation has a limited scopewithin which it formulates local policies, passes the budget, approves city services, and decides on issues related to the city’s municipal functions. Below the municipal corporation are several committees, through which councillors support thedecision-making process. The most noteworthy committee is the standing committee. It approves tenders and financial proposals initiated by the municipal commissioner. Corporations with a population of more than 300,000 also have ward committees, authorised to take certain decisions pertaining to electoral wards within their geographical areas. All elected councillors of that area are members of the ward committees. Finally, there isthe municipal commissioner (MC), who is the chief executive of the municipal corporation. The MC is appointed by the state and generally is from the Indian Administrative Service.
The municipal corporation has a limited scopewithin which it formulates local policies, passes the budget, approves city services, and decides on issues related to the city’s municipal functions.
The recently-concluded municipal elections, as in the past, were marked by obbying for tickets by individuals aspiring to launch their political career, and by former corporators who had lost their representative status following the dissolution of the ULBs. Many of them shifted political affiliations after failing to secure a ticket from one party. While some decided to run for office as independent candidates, their numbers were limited. This reflects the practical realities of electoral competition, since elections, even at the local level, involve high costs and organisational demands.
What was also starkly visible was that these elections, despite being termed local, were essentially a contest between national and state political parties. The only difference was that the contest was played out on local turf. Just as in national and state elections, national and state leaders selected candidates who campaigned on their behalf and provided party support. The local party manifestos and promotional literature featured photographs of national and state leaders alongside party symbols. State political units of the victorious party would have a decisive say in selecting the mayor and committee chairmen. If no single party obtains a majority and coalitions become unavoidable, decisions on the mayor and several chairmen are negotiatedamong the constituent units of the victorious coalitions.
Post-elections, while councillors participate in running the day-to-day affairs of the ULBs and may influence some local matters, real power in substantial municipal affairs continues to be exercised by the state, either through elected representatives or via the municipal commissioner, appointed by the state as the chief executive.
Councillors within ULBs vote in line with party directives, whether it is about the selection of the mayor or policy decisions.
Many of the issues that emerged during the elections had little to do with municipal governance. For instance, considerable attention was focused on the office of the Mumbai mayor. However, the mayor of Mumbai, apart from being officially considered as the city’s first citizen, holds a largely ceremonial and coordinating role.. Section 37 of the BMC Act provides that the Corporation shall, at its first meeting after the general elections, elect one of its councillors as the mayor. Since the mayor is essentially a councillor, it is clear that the Mumbai mayor, unlike mayors in cities of developed countries, is indirectly elected. Section 36 stipulates that it is the mayor’s responsibility to convene the monthly meeting of the Corporation. It also states that they may be removed from office by the state government if there is a failure to convene two consecutive meetings of the Corporation as statutorily provided. Every such meeting will be presided over by the mayor. Councillors within ULBs vote in line with party directives, whether it is about the selection of the mayor or policy decisions. Even if the party in power at the municipal level differs from that at the state level, the state continues to exercise significant influence over the municipal corporation in matters of significance. The city’s development plan, while initiated by the ULB, is ultimately subject to state approval, which may modify any portion of the master plan proposed by the ULB. A substantial portion of the city’s funding is also managed by the state. The state has, in the past, even stipulated the rate of local taxes and the share of revenues retained by ULBs.It could be argued that with a popularly elected body in place, some less significant local policies may be decided at the local level. Citizens may raise grievances through their elected representatives, and corporators may be useful in expediting service delivery. However, for everything with far-reaching implications for urban planning, municipal functions, finance, and functionaries, the overall authority of the state in municipal affairs remains largely unrestricted. Consequently, the attention devoted to municipal elections is often disproportionate. The popular municipal body remains peripheral. It is the state that is the primary authority.
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
