NGO Criticises Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill 2024 For Lack Of Vision

A study byagraha, an NGO dedicated to improving urban in India, has criticised the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, 2024. The Bill, introduced by Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on July 23, is said to lack the vision needed for effective metropolitan governance. According to the NGO, the Bill will only hinder Bengaluru's progress.

Comparative Analysis of Governance Bills

The comparative analysis involved the Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Bill, 2024, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Act, 2020, and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (KMC) Act, 1976. Janaagraha's Annual Survey of India's City-System (ASICS) revealed that the GBG Bill is "only half as good" as the BBC-GBG Bill proposed by the Brand Bengaluru Committee.

Srikanth Viswanathan, CEO of Janaagraha, stated that the GBG Bill envisions the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) as a "super municipality," akin to an outsourced state government wing. He noted that it lacks essential provisions for metropolitan governance and fails to integrate civic agencies effectively. "It is important to have empowered the mayor/council to have a single point of contact for accountability," he added.

Key Findings from Janaagraha's Study

The study highlighted several shortcomings in the GBG Bill. It scored only 3.35 out of 10 compared to 6.50 achieved by the BBC-GBG Bill. Notably, it had zero provisions for planning while the BBC-GBG Bill mandates integrated planning at metropolitan, municipal, and ward levels with a decentralized approval process.

One major issue identified was poor coordination between various civic agencies such as Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited. The lack of coordination hampers effective governance in Bengaluru.

Public Reaction and Further Review

The GBG Bill has faced significant criticism from civic groups, citizens, urban planners, and opposition parties. They argue that its complex layers of governance will impede city development rather than promote it. Due to public pushback, the legislative session has referred the Bill to a house committee for further review.

Viswanathan also pointed out that the GBG Bill does not mandate municipal cadre training or empower municipal corporations over staff and budgets. It lacks provisions for training mayors/councillors and comprehensive civic data disclosure among other key elements necessary for efficient governance.

The assessment revealed that positioning GBA as a "super municipality" weakens mayoral powers and councillors' roles while lacking transparency and accountability. This design flaw could lead to confusion and dysfunction in municipal governance.

The comparison between Bills was based on four fundamental factors: urban planning and design; urban capacities and resources; empowered political representation; and transparency, accountability, and participation. Higher scores indicated better performance in these areas.

The GBG Bill proposes dividing Bengaluru into five or ten administrative city corporations under GBA's formation. However, critics argue this approach lacks progressive governance aspects needed for a growing metropolis like Bengaluru.

The study underscores that without proper integration among civic agencies like traffic police or development authorities, effective city management remains challenging. This lack of coordination continues to be a bottleneck in Bengaluru’s civic governance.

Janaagraha’s findings suggest that empowering local bodies with clear roles is crucial for accountable governance at municipal levels. The current design under GBG Bill falls short in providing such empowerment leading towards potential inefficiencies.

As discussions continue around refining this legislation further scrutiny by house committees aims at addressing these critical gaps ensuring better future outcomes for Bengaluru’s urban landscape.