Beyond Strong Mayors: Case for Municipal Autonomy

Syllabus: GS2/Governance

Context

• The subject of municipal leadership in Indian cities kept coming up in policy debates and there was a feeling that Indian cities, particularly the major metropolises, needed a strong mayor.

About Urban Local Governance in India

• Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are the third tier of government in urban areas, responsible for delivering essential civic services and facilitating local development.
• The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992 inserted Part IX-A (Articles 243P–243ZG) and the Twelfth Schedule, giving constitutional recognition to municipalities.
• The Twelfth Schedule lists 18 functions, including urban planning, regulation of land use, roads and bridges, water supply, public health and sanitation, solid-waste management, slum improvement and urban poverty alleviation.
• However, the Constitution largely leaves the extent of devolution, finances and powers of mayors to state legislation.

Evolution in India

• 1687: Madras (now Chennai) established India’s first municipal corporation.
• 1882: Lord Ripon’s Resolution promoted elected local self-government.
• 1957: Balwantrai Mehta Committee strengthened the decentralisation debate.
• 1989: 64th Constitutional Amendment Bill proposed constitutional status for local bodies but failed in Rajya Sabha.
• 1992–93: The 73rd and 74th Amendments constitutionally recognised rural and urban local governments respectively.
• Subsequent programmes such as JNNURM, AMRUT and Smart Cities Mission sought to improve urban infrastructure and governance.

Present Institutional Set-up of Urban Governance

• Under the Constitution, municipalities may take three forms:
  • Nagar Panchayat (transitional areas);
  • Municipal Council (smaller urban areas);
  • Municipal Corporation (larger urban areas).
• The municipal council/corporation is the elected deliberative body, while the executive administration is generally headed by a Municipal Commissioner appointed by the state government.
• The Mayor is elected according to state law and, in many States, has largely ceremonial or coordinating responsibilities.
• Thus, Indian cities often operate through a dual structure: elected councillors and a mayor on one side, and a state-appointed bureaucracy led by the commissioner on the other.

Why India Needs a Strong Mayor?

• The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC), Sixth Report on Local Governance, argued that rapidly urbanising cities require stable leadership, an enduring vision and democratic accountability.
• It recommended:
  • a directly elected mayor, particularly for large cities;
  • a five-year tenure;
  • executive power vested in the mayor;
  • a mayoral cabinet drawn from councillors;
  • final mayoral authority over executive matters;
  • municipal corporations retaining checks through budget approval, regulation-making, major policy decisions and oversight;
  • an independent Ombudsman for accountability.
• A directly elected mayor can therefore provide a clear political mandate and make responsibility for urban outcomes more identifiable.

Related Issues & Challenges

• Limited functional autonomy: States frequently determine which functions ULBs perform and how they perform them. Even critical areas such as master planning may remain outside municipal control.
• Fiscal dependence: Municipalities have limited control over taxation and remain dependent on state transfers and grants.
• Administrative dependence: Commissioners and senior officials are state-appointed or deputed.
  • The provided context notes an all-India average municipal commissioner tenure of only about 10 months, undermining institutional continuity.
• Weak mayoral authority: The Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 recognises the mayor as a municipal authority but retains executive power with the state-appointed commissioner.
  • Similarly, Sections 36–37 of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation Act provide for election of the mayor by councillors and prescribe responsibilities largely centred on convening and presiding over Corporation meetings.
• Accountability gaps: The commissioner is primarily accountable upward to the state government, while the elected mayor is accountable to citizens.
  • It can produce friction rather than a unified chain of political and administrative responsibility.

Way Forward: From Strong Mayors to Strong Municipalities

• The reform agenda should move from merely changing the occupant of the executive chair to restructuring the institution itself.
• Implement the 74th Amendment in letter and spirit, with genuine devolution of the 18 Twelfth Schedule functions.
• Give ULBs greater functional, financial and administrative autonomy.
• Ensure predictable municipal revenue through stronger own-source taxation and empowered State Finance Commissions.
• Provide stable tenure for municipal commissioners and professional municipal cadres.
• Clearly divide responsibilities between the mayor, council and commissioner.
• Strengthen metropolitan planning and coordination among municipalities, parastatals and development authorities.
• Establish robust checks and balances, transparency, social accountability and independent municipal oversight.

Conclusion

• India does need strong political leadership in its cities, but replacing a constrained commissioner with a constrained mayor will not cure institutional weakness.
• The real reform is to create strong, autonomous, financially empowered and democratically accountable municipalities.
• Only then can a strong mayor translate electoral legitimacy into effective urban governance.

Source: ORF Online