The 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution constituted a new chapter in the process of democratic decentralisation in the country. It has been 25 years since the establishment of these lakhs of self-governing village panchayats and gram sabhas to manage local development. The amendment introduced Part IX (entitled “The
Panchayats”) and Part IXA (entitles “The Municipalities”) of the Constitution consisting of standardized features such as:

• Mandatory creation of rural and urban local bodies (ULBs): Article 243 B envisages a three-tier system of Panchayats in all the States/UTs, except those with populations not
• exceeding 20 lakhs which can have 2-tier. Similarly, 243Q provides for the creation of municipalities in urban areas.
• Delegation of powers and functions by State legislatures to Panchayats and Municipalities under Articles 243G and 243W respectively. Schedule XI and XII of the constitution details an illustrative list of functions that may be entrusted to PRIS and municipalities respectively.
• Reservations for historically marginalised communities and women (33%): In some states such as Kerala, Bihar etc. have increased this to 50% for women.
• State Election Commission (SECs): Article 243 K vests preparation of electoral rolls for local elections in SECs and holding of regular elections after every five years.
• District Planning Committee (DPC): under article 243 ZD to consolidate the Local Governance plans prepared by the Panchayats and the Municipalities in the district and to prepare a draft development plan for the district as a whole.
• State Finance Commission: Under Articles 243 I and 242 Y, SFCs are constituted by Governor of the State to make recommendations regarding the distribution of funds between the State and the local bodies, the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees which may be assigned to or appropriated by the local bodies, grants-in-aid from the Consolidated Fund of the State, the measures needed to improve the financial position of the local bodies etc.

ISSUES WITH ULBS

• Lack of powers with elected representatives at local level: In most municipal corporations, while the mayor is the ceremonial head, the executive powers of the corporation are vested with the State government-appointed commissioner.
• Ineffective Leadership: Mayors and Councilors look at their positions as a stepping stone for their political career rather than being change agents bringing out desired urban reforms.
• Further delegation of powers from ULBs: For eg- Central government programmes such as the Smart Cities Mission seek to ring fence projects from local government by delegating the decision-making powers available to the ULB to the Chief Executive Officer of the SPV.
• Excessive State Control- The state governments have the power to supersede and dissolve municipal bodies under certain circumstances. Further, state governments have powers likeo They approve municipal budget (except that of corporation). They also look into the following matters:
  • o Even the modified local tax structure needs government’s prior approval and later ratification.
  • o Control through accounting and audit system, etc.
• Financial paucity- Their chief sources of income are the varied types of taxes, most of which is levied by the union and state governments and, the taxes collected by the urban bodies are not sufficient to cover the expenses of the services provided. Indian cities revenue is less than 1% of gross domestic product. The net result is that cities do not have adequate financial autonomy.
• Creation of parastatal Agencies: such as urban development authorities (which build infrastructure) and public corporations (which provide services such as water, electricity and transportation) are accountable only to the State government, not the local government.
• Corruption leading to low effectiveness- The administrative machinery, at the disposal of these local bodies is insufficient and ineffective. The staff which is often underpaid indulges in corrupt practices which lead to loss of income and lack of effectiveness.
• Lack of effective and efficient Personnel: Urban government increasingly needs professional services of experts to cope with the increasing needs of the population, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The situation is worsening because the rural influx in town and cities has increasingly converted them in ghettos leading to lack of access to basic services
• Low level of People’s Participation- People’s apathy towards participating in the governance system pushes such institutions into a state of complacency and irresponsibility.

• Issues highlighted in the Annual Survey of India’s City System, 2017 released in March 2018:

• Lack of local democracy, with only two of the 23 cities putting in place ward committees and area sabhas at least on paper.
• Only 9 of the 23 cities had a citizen’s charter. Even in the cities where such a charter exists, there is no mention of service levels, or timelines for service delivery etc.
• An ombudsman for resolving citizen’s issues is also missing in all but three Indian cities— Bhubaneswar, Ranchi and Thiruvananthapuram.
• 19 of the 23 cities don’t release even basic data about their functioning in usable formats.
• Most Indian cities use town and country planning acts which were drafted decades before the economy was liberalized and the lack of a modern, contemporary urban planning framework may be costing India 3% of its GDP every year.

STEPS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT FOR ULBS

• Performance linked grants: The 14th Finance Commission also stipulated that a detailed procedure for the disbursal of the Performance Grant to ULBs based on various reforms in areas like accounting, auditing, reporting, etc.
• Comprehensive road map for municipal reforms by Union ministry of housing and urban affairs. The road map, consisting of three tiers of reforms along three main avenues - Governance, Planning, and Finance.
• Municipal Bonds: In 2017, NITI Aayog in its Three-year Action Agenda document also talks of utilizing Municipal Bond market. This would ensure low cost of borrowing which is required for municipality projects which typically have low viability, long gestation period and low to moderate cost recovery.
• Directly elected Mayor: A private member’s bill was introduced in the parliament to make provisions for direct election and empowerment of the office of mayor in country. This would help in increasing accountability as mayor can be questioned directly and creating more transparency as communication and reporting will be directly done by mayor.
• Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT): During 2015-17, various basic reforms were undertaken under this scheme resulting in:
  • Improved collection of user charges: 104 cities in 14 states collected more than 90% of user charges,
  • Establishment of municipal cadres in 21 states.
  • Improved service delivery: 256 cities started offering online citizen services.
  • Others: 21 states established state finance commissions and 363 cities have completed credit rating.

Conclusion:

Local self-government in India should be strengthened as it captures local needs and ensures responsive governance. As cities struggle to meet the basic needs of their inhabitants, the existing modes of organising power in urban India must be re-examined.