'Attempts To Usurp Power From BBMP': PIL In Karnataka High Court Challenges Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024, Notice Issued

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (July 21) issued notice to the State government, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) on a PIL challenging vires of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024, claiming that the law is a blatant attempt by the State to usurp power from local bodies like BBMP and divert resources to itself. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi issued notice on a petition filed by T S Nagabharana and others, and directed respondents to file their objections in four weeks time.

Senior Advocate M B Nargund appearing for the petitioners argued that the petition is filed on the ground that there is violation of democratic principles of self-governance enshrined in the Constitution of India pursuant to 74th Amendment to the Constitution.

The petition states 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 and the same has resulted in 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.

It states that the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act 2024 passed by the State Legislature has come into effect from 15.05.2025, where the object of the Act, is to provide for the core principles, Institutions and processes for effective urban governance in the Greater Bengaluru Area.

However, the GBA replaces the existing Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 and the rules made thereunder.

It is claimed that as per the object of the GBG Act, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 is inadequate to govern Bengaluru as it did not institute any institutions that address the fragmentation of governance in Bengaluru due to the multiplicity of civic agencies and lack of coordination between them.

The petition states that a key facet of the GBG Act 2024 is the creation of Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) to co-ordinate and supervise the development of the Greater Bengaluru Area. Further the GBG Act seeks to dismantle BBMP and certain other existing municipalities to establish and/or reconstitute not more than seven new city corporations in the aforementioned Greater Bengaluru Area, at the discretion of the State Government and BBMP.

It is claimed that BBMP is a municipal corporation which is an Urban Local Body (ULB) established and governed under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, as envisaged vide enactment of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 (i.e. 74th Amendment for brevity). The impugned GBG Act is a tactic to delay and subvert the democratic process and disenfranchise the citizens of city of Bengaluru by delaying the BBMP elections.

The plea states that Section 9 of GBG Act provides for establishment of Greater Bengaluru authority consisting of Chief Minister as Ex-officio Chairman, Minister In-charge of Bengaluru development as Ex-officio Vice Chairman, Minister in State Government representing the Legislature Constituency, Minister in charge of the urban development as Ex-officio members and further 18 and more government entities like BDA, BWSSB, BMTC, BESCOM etc as members who have got voting power on par with Mayors of the city corporations.

As per Sec 15 of the GBG Act 2025 provides for formulation and execution of major projects to Greater Bengaluru Authority and the Authority has also been given for exercise of power and control over the roads, drains and infrastructure which are owned by City Corporations.

The Power of collection and distribution of taxes has also been given to Greater Bengaluru Authority. As per Sec 316 of GBG Act 2025 power is given to Greater Bengaluru Authority to make model bye laws which has to be compulsorily adopted by the city corporations.

The plea says 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 as Unconstitutional. Direct 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. Direct respondent no.3 to hold elections to BBMP within a period of three months.

Case Title: T S Nagabharana & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 17336/2025.