Give mayors real powers, ensure timely civic audits, urban body heads tell Centre

Urban body heads are asking the Centre to redesign municipal governance around authority and accountability. Their central concern is that direct elections alone will not help if mayors cannot control officials or city administration. They support fixed five-year mayoral terms and a mayor-in-council system, but want powers to match public expectations.

Rajkot mayor Nehal Shukla proposed giving mayors shared executive authority through a mayor-in-council. He also suggested that the Election Commission conduct municipal polls because state governments delay them. For finances, he called for time-bound audits, possibly by the Comptroller and Auditor General. If state auditors remain responsible, he wants the backlog capped at two years.

The leaders also highlighted weak enforcement of tender rules. Shukla said tenders are required for works or services above Rs 5 lakh, but this is often not followed. Bhubaneswar mayor Sulochana Das said commissioners remain outside mayors' control, including appointments and performance reporting.

A mayor-in-council is a municipal executive arrangement. Instead of leaving daily city administration mainly with officials, it shares executive responsibility between the mayor and a small group of elected councillors. The group resembles a cabinet, with members handling different areas of municipal work.

The mechanism is portfolio-based accountability. Individual councillors receive responsibility for particular portfolios and answer for their performance. The mayor works with them to run the city day to day. This gives elected representatives a formal role in executive decisions, rather than limiting the mayor to a largely ceremonial position.

Rajkot mayor Nehal Shukla said every city with a directly elected mayor should have this system. His argument was that direct election has little purpose without power. The article does not specify the exact number of councillors or the detailed division of portfolios under the proposed model.

The article portrays mayors as having limited practical authority. Rajkot mayor Nehal Shukla compared mayors with governors, while saying standing committees wield financial powers. Executive officials remain under state government control. This separates electoral visibility from administrative control.

Bhubaneswar mayor Sulochana Das gave the clearest example. She said mayors cannot write municipal commissioners' annual performance reports and have no say in their appointments. Commissioners also change frequently. That means mayors may be expected to deliver services while lacking control over the officials who manage administration.

The article does not provide a precise measure of mayors' budget powers. It specifically assigns financial power to standing committees and describes commissioners as operating beyond mayors' control. It also does not list every day-to-day function. Overall, the reported structure leaves mayors with limited influence over personnel, finances, and administration.

Direct election gives a mayor a visible public mandate, but it does not automatically transfer executive authority. If state-controlled officials manage administration and committees control finances, voters may hold the mayor responsible for outcomes that the mayor cannot direct. That weakens both accountability and the practical value of the election.

The article gives a concrete example from Bhubaneswar. Mayor Sulochana Das said commissioners are beyond mayors' control. Mayors cannot write their annual performance reports or influence their appointments, and commissioners change frequently. In Rajkot, Shukla said standing committees hold financial powers while executive officials remain under state government control.

This creates a gap between responsibility and power. Shukla therefore argued that directly elected mayors need a mayor-in-council system. Giving the mayor and elected councillors shared executive authority would connect the electoral mandate with daily administration and make individual portfolios accountable.

Financial audits are meant to reveal whether municipal money and procedures are being handled properly. When reports arrive years late, officials and elected representatives cannot respond quickly to questionable spending. Delayed oversight also reduces the chance that violations will be detected while records, decisions, and responsible people are still easy to examine.

Nehal Shukla said audit reports are delayed by six to eight years. He linked this delay to financial irregularities remaining hidden. He also said rules require tenders for works or services costing more than Rs 5 lakh, but that requirement is often ignored. Municipal commissioners may know about violations yet approve transactions because civic bodies otherwise could not function, he alleged.

Shukla proposed CAG audits. Alternatively, he said state audits should be legally required to keep the backlog within two years. Faster reports would bring financial discipline sooner and make municipal spending more accountable to residents.

The article describes a divided municipal system. Mayors are elected political heads, but executive officials remain under state government control. Standing committees exercise financial power. Municipal commissioners handle important administration, yet mayors cannot write their performance reports or influence their appointments, according to Bhubaneswar mayor Sulochana Das.

State governments also influence the timing of local democracy. Nehal Shukla said they find reasons to delay municipal polls. He proposed that the Election Commission conduct these elections, pointing to its record of holding general and assembly elections on time. The proposal would shift election management away from state governments.

Mayors represent elected municipal leadership and seek authority over daily governance. Commissioners are executive officials, while standing committees handle finances. The Election Commission would conduct polls if the proposal is adopted. The article presents state governments as controlling officials and contributing to election delays, not as direct operators of every civic service.

Municipalities are local bodies responsible for running cities and arranging civic works and services. In general, they raise money through local taxes, fees, charges, grants, and other lawful receipts, then spend it on public services and infrastructure. The article does not provide a detailed list of municipal revenue sources or spending departments, so those details are not specific to this report.

The article does identify one spending safeguard. Tenders are required for works or services costing more than Rs 5 lakh. Shukla said this rule is often not followed, while commissioners may approve transactions despite knowing about violations. Standing committees are described as holding financial powers, adding another layer to spending decisions.

Audits test whether money and procedures were handled properly. Shukla said reports arrive six to eight years late, allowing irregularities to remain undisclosed. CAG audits, or a legal two-year limit for state audits, could make local spending more transparent and accountable.