Urban Local Government Elections

Context: The ongoing discourse around ‘one nation one election’ can serve as the right opportunity to streamline the Elections in Urban Local Government structures (ULGs) which face the problem of neglect and delays in elections.

Importance of timely elections in ULGs:

• India has over 4,800 ULGs that oversee nearly 40% of the population, which is estimated to cross 50% by 2050. 
• Well administered cities are the backbone of the country’s economy, contributing over 60% to India’s GDP. 
• Ensuring regular elections to install democratically-elected governments in our cities is not just constitutionally mandated but also important for economic and social development.

Constitutional Provisions regarding elections to ULGs: 

The system of Urban Government was constitutionalised through the 74^th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992. 

• Article 243ZA: Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India provided that the superintendence, direction, and control of electoral rolls, and the conduct of all elections to the municipalities should be vested in the State Election Commission.
  • The State Election Commission consists of a state election commissioner to be appointed by the governor. 
  • The state legislature may make provision with respect to all matters relating to elections to the municipalities.
• Article 243R: Article 243R provided that all the seats in the municipality should be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituency in the municipal area, known as "Ward".

Issues associated with ULGs: 

Despite the constitutional mandate, there are various issues:

• Uncertainty and Delays in Elections: Elections for ULGs are frequently delayed, with over 60% of ULGs in India experiencing such delays, violating the constitutional mandate to hold elections every five years. This undermines the principle of decentralization and limits citizen representation and accountability.

• Delay in Council Formation: Even after elections are held, it is seen that there are significant delays in constituting councils. For example, in Karnataka, councils took an average of 11 months to form post-election results, leaving elected representatives unable to address local development needs effectively.

• Disempowerment of State Election Commissions (SECs): The SECs, responsible for conducting ULG elections, are often disempowered. Only 4 out of 15 states have granted them authority for ward delimitation. The state government inaction in ward delimitation leads to delay in elections or legal disputes over reservations (highlighted in CAG report).

• Political influence and discretion: There is a concern regarding the undue influence of state governments on election schedules. Government officials have the discretion to delay elections, which compromises the integrity of the electoral process as highlighted in the Supreme Court ruling in Suresh Mahajan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022). 

• Regional disparities in election timeliness: The extent of delays varies across regions. For example, while some municipalities like those in Chandigarh faced minimal delays, others such as Bengaluru and Mumbai have been awaiting elections for over one year after their previous councils' terms expired.

• Challenges with women's reservation: In Nagaland, the government's attempt to hold ULG elections with a 33% reservation for women faced backlash from tribal organizations opposed to this mandate. Thus, there is a broader struggle between constitutional requirements and local customs.

• Impact on citizen participation: Delays in conducting timely elections negatively affect public participation and trust in local governance. A survey indicated that about 61% of ULGs experienced delayed council elections, which leads to disillusionment among citizens regarding their local governance.

Past efforts to resolve the issue of elections to local bodies:

• The 79th report of the Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice: Presented report on the ‘Feasibility of Simultaneous Elections,’ submitted in 2015, while advocating simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, was silent on elections to ULGs. 
• NITI Aayog discussion paper (2017): on ‘Analysis of Simultaneous Elections’, kept ULGs out of its purview, arguing that the third-tier institutions are State subjects and that the sheer number of such institutions across the country makes it “impractical, and possibly impossible, to synchronise elections”.
  • Similar reasoning is put forward in the 2018 draft report of the Law Commission of India on simultaneous elections. 
• High Level Committee (2024): High Level Committee constituted by the Government of India to provide a road map for implementation of simultaneous elections, deliberated on local body elections and recommended synchronising them within 100 days of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.

Way Forward:

• Empowering State Election Commissions (SECs): Grant SECs the authority to manage ward delimitation independently, ensuring that state governments do not interfere in the electoral process. This would help prevent delays caused by political factors.
• Timely Elections: Establish a legal framework that mandates ULG elections to be conducted within six months of the term expiration of existing councils, ensuring adherence to democratic principles and timely representation.

The HLC report, which was accepted by the Union government in September 2024, has touched upon the procedure of elections to local governments which can be synchronized within 100 days of simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies after taking consultation with stakeholders.