As BMC readies for polls, a look at how India’s richest municipal corporation was born

As Mumbai approaches its next election, it does so with a municipal framework built through two and a half centuries of administrative evolution, a reminder that today’s civic contests are part of a long and continuous story of how the city has learned to govern itself.

East India Company to British Parliament

In the mid-eighteenth century, long before the word “municipality” entered local vocabulary, the city’s civic administration was controlled directly by the President and Council of the East India Company. Everyday functions such as scavenging, street repairs, and policing were delegated to junior staff with little authority, leading to repeated complaints about filthy streets and weak enforcement.

In 1752, the Company formally acknowledged that residents paid little heed to the scavenger, prompting the appointment of a senior Council member to oversee cleaning and the imposition of proportional taxes on houses to fund sanitation. This was the city’s earliest form of civic taxation, though administration remained loose and inconsistent.

A more structured arrangement began in 1792, when the British Parliament passed Statute 33 George III. It allowed the Governor-General to appoint Justices of the Peace in Bombay, figures who effectively functioned like proto-corporators. They could appoint scavengers, order street repairs, levy property taxes within limits and enforce payment. But the system merged civic duties with policing functions, leading to operational confusion and frequent disputes.

The first recognisable municipal institution was created in 1845, when Act XI of 1845 consolidated civic taxes into a Municipal Fund and established the Board of Conservancy. This seven-member body of European and Indian Justices and senior officials was responsible for sanitation, roads, markets and public works, and its members were elected for three-year terms.

But the Board lacked penal powers, suffered persistent financial shortages and clashed frequently with the Bench of Justices. A significant share of its revenue was diverted to police expenses. While it carried out some improvements, the system struggled to keep pace with a rapidly expanding city.

By the late 1850s, epidemics and overcrowding had intensified dissatisfaction with the Board. In 1858, it was dissolved and replaced by three Municipal Commissioners under Act XXV of 1858, one appointed by the Government and two by the justices.

The commissioners were expected to bring administrative discipline, but their equal powers and divided responsibility slowed decision-making. Spending rose without adequate oversight. Their major achievement was the development of Vihar Lake and Bombay’s first piped water supply, which significantly improved public health.

Municipal Corporation of Bombay

A decisive shift came on July 1, 1865, when Act II of 1865 created Bombay’s first statutory Municipal Corporation. The day coincided with the financial crash known as Black Monday, but it also marked a major administrative reform. Under the Act, fewer than a hundred Justices of the Peace, men drawn from mercantile, official and educated elites, were converted into a corporate municipal body with powers to hold property, levy taxes, and borrow funds.

They formed the first Municipal Corporation of Bombay through nomination, not election, reflecting the colonial administration’s belief that the city was not ready for direct civic democracy. Executive authority was placed with a Municipal Commissioner appointed for three years, assisted by a Controller of Municipal Accounts, a Health Officer and an Executive Engineer. While the system centralised civic power, the Commissioner’s autonomy created financial strains that triggered the 1871 crisis and demands for public representation.

These pressures resulted in the Municipal Bill of 1872, which introduced Bombay’s first civic franchise. Rate-payers, residents who paid specified municipal taxes, often with a minimum annual threshold of Rs 25 per year, were allowed to elect half the members of a 64-member Corporation, with the rest nominated by the Government and the Justices.

A 12-member Town Council was created to supervise finances, with eight members elected by the Corporation. For the first time, residents with property had a direct voice in civic administration. Subsequent Acts in 1878 and 1882 expanded this framework, influenced by Lord Ripon’s call for wider local self-government.

This momentum culminated in Act III of 1888, the law that forms the backbone of the modern BMC. It created three coordinating authorities, the Municipal Corporation, the Standing Committee and the Municipal Commissioner, and defined the city’s key civic responsibilities: water supply, drainage, sanitation, markets, hospitals, fire services, education and street maintenance. The number of councillors increased, wards were established geographically, and the civic structure began to resemble the system in place today.

Further constitutional changes arrived in the 20th century. Representation of Justices of the Peace ended in 1922. The franchise widened through the 1930s. Bombay held its first municipal elections under adult franchise in 1948.

The creation of Greater Bombay in the 1950s expanded municipal limits and membership. By the 1960s, the city adopted single-member constituencies, strengthening direct representation. Over the decades, the number of wards has grown from 140 in the 1960s to 227 in 2025as the population expanded and services multiplied.

BMC now oversees water systems, hospitals, schools, roads, beaches, drains, markets, disaster response, public health and a civic budget among the largest in Asia.

Present-day BMC and its challenges

Since its inception, Mumbai’s municipal limits have steadily expanded. On April 15, 1950, the city’s boundaries were extended to include the Andheri taluka, and in February 1957, the Borivali taluka was merged into the city under the Greater Bombay Scheme.

Before this consolidation, 16 of Andheri’s 53 villages (23.4 square miles out of 65.5 square miles) had been grouped into the municipal boroughs of Bandra (including Vile Parle), Andheri, Ghatkopar (including Kirol), and Kurla. In Borivali taluka, 15 villages (28 sq miles out of 71.3 sq miles) formed the boroughs of Borivali, Kandivali, and Malad.

Today, BMC governs roughly 438 sq km, overseeing the lives of more than 1.25 crore residents and interacting daily with an equally large transient population from Thane, Navi Mumbai, and the wider metropolitan region.

Against this backdrop, the idea of splitting BMC has resurfaced periodically over the past five decades, driven by concerns about the civic body’s enormous size, population pressure and administrative complexity.

Proponents argue that a single corporation cannot fairly allocate resources across such diverse zones; that the commissioner’s centralised authority slows decision-making; that the eastern suburbs, western suburbs and island city each require distinct planning priorities; and that decentralisation would improve transparency by reducing the concentration of political and financial power in one institution.

Others contend that dividing BMC would dilute Mumbai’s financial strength, fragment administration and weaken citywide coordination. The issue remains politically sensitive, especially because control over a unified BMC has long been central to the power strategies of major parties, notably the undivided Shiv Sena.