Discuss the major provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act. Do you think that the Act remains an ‘unfulfilled dream’? Argue your case. (2023, 20 Marks)
The original Constitution mentioned municipalities only in the State List. The 74th Amendment (in force 1 June 1993) inserted Part IXA (Arts. 243P–243ZG) and the Twelfth Schedule, giving urban local bodies constitutional permanence. It secured their existence but not their authority. That gap is why the Act is called an “unfulfilled dream”.
Major provisions
- Three types of body (243Q), classified by the Governor by population, density, revenue and non-farm employment: nagar panchayats for transitional areas, municipal councils for smaller towns, corporations for cities. The proviso allows industrial townships to have no elected body.
- Composition (243R) — all seats directly elected from wards; MPs, MLAs and non-voting experts may be added; the chairperson’s election is left to state law.
- Wards committees (243S) in municipalities of three lakh or more, to bring decisions closer to citizens.
- Reservation (243T) — SC/ST seats by population; at least one-third for women; chairperson posts and OBC quotas as states decide.
- Five-year term (243U), polls before expiry or within six months of dissolution.
- Powers and taxes (243W, 243X) — states “may” devolve the 18 Twelfth Schedule subjects, from urban planning and water supply to slum upgrading, and “may” authorise taxes and grants.
- State Finance Commission (243Y) and State Election Commission (243ZA); audit by state law (243Z).
- Planning — a District Planning Committee (243ZD), four-fifths elected, and a Metropolitan Planning Committee (243ZE) for areas above ten lakh.
- Scheduled Areas are excluded (243ZC), and courts cannot interfere in electoral matters (243ZG).
The case that the dream is unfulfilled
- Functions — states kept what defines a city. Development authorities hold land-use planning, and boards and metro corporations hold water and transport. Bengaluru splits one city among half a dozen agencies. The Smart Cities Mission (2015–25) went further, inviting states to delegate councils’ statutory powers to the CEO of a company SPV.
- Funds — the Reserve Bank of India‘s 2024 report puts municipal corporations’ revenue at about 0.6% of GDP (2023–24), against 9.2% for the Union and 14.6% for states. GST subsumed octroi and entry tax, and cities have no seat on the GST Council.
- Functionaries and executive — staff are state cadre, and many posts are vacant, especially in small towns. The mayor is largely ceremonial on a short term, while a state-appointed Municipal Commissioner holds executive power. NITI Aayog‘s April 2026 framework for million-plus cities judged mayors’ stature “largely symbolic”.
- Democracy itself — polls run late. Maharashtra’s 29 corporations, Mumbai’s included, voted only on 15 January 2026 after years under administrators, despite Kishansing Tomar (2006). Wards committees are nominee-heavy; there is no urban gram sabha. Most MPCs have never produced a plan.
- Women — reservation, often 50%, fills seats, but a woman mayor inherits the same powerless chair.
What has moved
Elected councils cannot now be abolished at will. Women, Dalits and Adivasis hold urban office in large numbers. Haryana directly elects mayors. Municipal bonds, though tiny (about ₹4,204 crore outstanding in March 2024), have grown with rating incentives. The Sixteenth Finance Commission (2026–31) raised the urban share to about 45% of ₹7.9 lakh crore for local bodies, withholding grants from bodies not duly elected.
Conclusion
The dream is unfulfilled, not abandoned. The Act guaranteed form, not substance, leaving the empowered third tier that Isher Judge Ahluwalia found missing to states that gain from withholding it. Fulfilment needs “shall” in Article 243W, a directly elected mayor with executive power, parastatals answerable to councils and a share of buoyant taxes. Until then, Indian cities are administered from state capitals with a local face.