Greater Bengaluru Governance Act Renders Local Bodies “Toothless”, Violates 74th Constitutional Amendment: Petitioners To Karnataka High Court

During the hearing of a PIL challenging the constitutionality of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024, the petitioners told the Karnataka High Court on Friday [July 17] that the Act is 'making a minced meat of the whole concept of the 74th Constitutional Amendment' for local self-government.

The pleas state that the elections to the Municipal Corporation, Bengaluru was held in the year 2015. Thereafter, no elections have been held to the Municipal Corporation, Bengaluru on one pretext or the other. The same has resulted in the absence of an elected body of councillors in the City of Bengaluru. Thus, the constitutional mandate of self-governance and decentralisation of administration with respect to the local bodies is completely defeated.

The GBA replaces the existing Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder. Meanwhile earlier today, the Supreme Court directed that elections to the five municipal corporations in Bengaluru be held in December 2026, taking note of the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Karnataka.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha heard detailed arguments challenging the constitutional validity of the Act wherein advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioners said that the legislation has rendered the local self-governments 'toothless'.

“…So many functions were supposed to be entrusted with the locally elected bodies. With the GBA Act, BBMP which is the elected body have been virtually rendered toothless... The entire power has been taken over by the Chief Minister and bureaucrats. It is making a minced meat of the whole concept of the 74th Amendment of local self-government”, Bhushan submitted.

He pointed out that Section 8 of the Act makes the GBA the coordinating authority, while Section 9 provides that the constitution of the GBA comprises exclusively of ex-officio members, including the Chief Minister, Ministers, and bureaucrats, with no representation from locally elected bodies.

“…All these are basically bureaucrats or ministers of state government… they are not people from the locally elected bodies which is the whole purpose of article 243 that is to have local bodies which are elected to do democratic work …None of them are elected people of the local body”, he argued.

He specifically highlighted Article 243ZE, which provides for a Metropolitan Planning Committee for metropolitan areas, with 'not less than two-thirds of the members of the committee shall be elected by and from amongst the elected members of the municipalities and Chair Persons of Panchayat in Municipal Areas'.

“…Even under Article 243ZE, the draft development plan for the metropolitan area has to be made by the elected representatives. But unfortunately, that role has been taken over by the GBA… it is making complete mockery of the whole constitutional amendment which brought in the whole idea of elected self-government at the local level.”, he said.

Bhushan further contended that the GBA has taken over all functions listed in the 12th Schedule of the Constitution, including urban planning, town planning, construction of buildings, water supply, public health, sanitation, and safeguarding weaker sections of society.

He also referred to a CAG report on the empowerment of local bodies, noting that Karnataka had not devolved many functions as mandated by the 74th Amendment.

“…By this Act, they have vested GBA with the power of municipal planning and do the work of elected body under the Article 243. By Article 243, local bodies were entrusted for local governance. They were originally vested with the power of town planning etc. This was in consonance with the idea of local self-government and decentralised democracy, taken over now by the state government” he said. 

The plea states that it is a blatant attempt by the Respondent No. 1 (State government) to usurp power from local governments like BBMP and divert concentration of power and resources in its favour.

The plea thus prays to declare sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 316 of the Act, which provides GBA with unbridled powers, as Unconstitutional. It also seeks to direct the State Election Commission to conduct election to the respondent no.2 i.e. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. By way of interim relief, it has prayed to stay the operation of the impugned legislation as well as to instruct respondent no.3 to hold elections to BBMP within a period of three months.

Case Title: T S Nagabharana & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 17336/2025 & Connected Matters