Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill: A Grand Vision with Hidden Flaws

On March 10, 2025, Karnataka’s lawmakers passed the Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill, aiming to reshape how Bengaluru is governed. The bill divides the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) into multiple smaller corporations, all overseen by a newly created Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) led by the Chief Minister.

It is presented as a solution to the city’s chronic problems—traffic congestion, water shortages, and failing infrastructure. The idea of localized governance has merit, but deeper examination reveals concerns over excessive state control, uncertain financial planning, and the erosion of local democracy.

Splitting Up, but Handing Power Upward

The BBMP currently governs nearly 800 square kilometers and serves around 15 million residents—an overwhelming task for a single civic body. Breaking it into smaller corporations makes sense in theory, allowing neighborhoods like tech-heavy Koramangala or industrial Peenya to have more focused administration.

However, the bill places the GBA—led by the Chief Minister and state-appointed officials—in charge of planning, budgets, and coordination. Instead of decentralizing power, it consolidates decision-making at the state level, undermining the autonomy of local governance.

The 74th Constitutional Amendment (1992) was intended to empower urban local bodies, ensuring governance is driven by elected representatives rather than state-appointed bureaucrats. Yet, this bill does the opposite—limiting the power of elected councillors while enhancing bureaucratic control. Although a city as complex as Bengaluru may benefit from centralized oversight, the bill’s approach risks diminishing citizen representation.

Money Woes Waiting to Unfold

The financial restructuring proposed by the bill is another point of contention. Bengaluru’s revenue, largely dependent on property taxes, is unevenly distributed—wealthy areas like Indiranagar generate significantly more revenue than less affluent zones like Dasarahalli. The division of the BBMP might force corporations to manage finances more responsibly, but it could also result in stark financial disparities between different corporations.

The government has assured financial support for weaker corporations, but details remain unclear. Will funds be distributed fairly, or will financial assistance become a political tool? Additionally, the GBA’s control over budgets and taxation could either ensure equitable distribution or entangle the city in bureaucratic red tape. The bill assumes smaller corporations will manage finances more efficiently, yet it fails to address deeper fiscal issues, such as the BBMP’s historically poor tax collection and mismanagement.

One of Bengaluru’s biggest governance challenges is the lack of coordination between agencies handling water supply, electricity, and traffic. The bill aims to address this by placing the GBA in charge of aligning these agencies and overseeing the newly created corporations.

However, this level of coordination is assigned to a small group of bureaucrats under the Chief Minister’s leadership, sidelining elected representatives. The 74th Amendment mandates that councillors should be at the forefront of urban governance, yet this bill places unelected officials in control of critical decisions. While a centralized authority could streamline operations, it also risks concentrating power in the hands of a few bureaucrats rather than those directly accountable to the citizens.

Politics at Play: Shaking a BJP Stronghold

The passage of the bill was contentious, with opposition walkouts and heated debates in the Karnataka Assembly. The delay in Bengaluru’s municipal elections for over four years adds a political dimension to the bill. The city has historically been a BJP stronghold, while the ruling Congress has struggled to gain electoral traction.

The bill redraws municipal boundaries and extends the mayor’s term from 12 to 30 months, changes that could influence electoral outcomes. While the bill’s proponents argue that it addresses governance issues, its timing and provisions raise questions about political motivations.

There were missed opportunities as well—proposals for greater public participation, such as empowering neighborhood committees or introducing a directly elected mayor with a fixed term, were largely ignored. The bill nominally acknowledges citizen involvement but leans heavily on top-down administration, potentially alienating residents from decision-making processes.

A Leap with Too Many Blanks

Bengaluru’s governance challenges are undeniable, and inaction is not an option. The Greater Bengaluru Governance Bill takes a bold step toward addressing longstanding issues, particularly in terms of size, coordination, and resource distribution. However, its heavy reliance on state control, lack of financial clarity, and departure from democratic principles create significant concerns.

While the bill has potential, it requires significant revisions to ensure that governance reforms strengthen, rather than weaken, local democracy. Bengaluru needs a system that empowers both its citizens and institutions—not one that merely shifts power from one central authority to another.