Opinion We the People of India’s cities: Realising the vision of a free and equal democracy
With rapidly expanding urbanism, India’s cities are at the frontlines of our constitutional promise and failure. We need a re-imagination of rights, justice and dignity in the city — one rooted in the Constitution itself
As B R Ambedkar reminded us, the Constitution is a “living document”, its life depends on how we translate it into everyday urban policy 
Over the last couple of years, India’s Constitution — especially its Preamble — has re-entered the heart of political life. Invoking the Preamble as a symbol is easy. What is harder is employing the Constitution as a contemporary, ever-evolving framework — a guiding architecture for the institutions, policies, and everyday decisions that define India today and shape our future. Nowhere is this understanding more essential than in the Indian city.
As the country undergoes one of the largest and fastest urban transitions in the world, the struggle over constitutional values must be viewed as an urban struggle. Cities create economic opportunities but also deepen vulnerabilities, negatively impacting social and environmental parameters. Constitutional values of justice, equality, liberty, fraternity, socialism, and secularism are denied daily in streets, housing, labour markets, transport, planning decisions and even the air we breathe. Cities are at the frontlines of our constitutional promise and failure.
Constitution and the urban crisis
At the time of Independence and the framing of the Constitution, India was residing in its villages. Villages were seen as the core of Indian society — as autonomous and self-governing units. The freedom movement, rooted in the rural and swadeshi, did not have a clear articulation on cities. The huge challenges facing a newly independent nation also did not allow room for imagining our urban transformation. It was only in the 1980s that the debate on cities gained traction. The 74th Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 1993, gave urban local bodies constitutional status for the first time. It mandated regular elections, provided reservation for marginalised groups and one-third women — one of India’s largest inclusion measures — and required states to devolve functions, funds, and functionaries to municipalities. The Twelfth Schedule listed 18 mandatory core municipal responsibilities, from planning and land regulation to water supply, sanitation, environmental protection, and slum improvement. Metropolitan Planning Committees were envisaged to coordinate planning across regions.
Yet, the everyday practice of Indian urban governance bears little resemblance to this vision. The 74th Amendment remains one of India’s most under-implemented constitutional reforms. Many states have devolved almost no real authority to cities. Parastatal agencies — development authorities, transport corporations, water boards, and now the special-purpose vehicles (SPVs) — control almost every major urban function. Municipalities remain financially weak, administratively constrained, and politically sidelined. Under the twin pressures of state governments and national schemes, urban governance in the preceding decade has become more technocratic, top-down, consultant-led, and project-driven, farther from constitutional values. The vocabulary of urban rights is mostly absent in policies, planning, municipal budgets, and infrastructure projects.
Urban India faces challenges the framers of the Constitution, and even the 74th Amendment, could not have foreseen: Extreme climate events, spatial inequality, informal livelihoods, platform economies, mobility and housing crises, migrant precarity, and accelerating environmental degradation. The other bulwarks of our democracy — especially the judiciary — have advanced constitutionalism through landmark judgments, but their role has clear limits. Meanwhile, legislative discourse in India continues to parrot the cliched “engines of growth” narrative without offering any alternate imagination to our urban futures.
Global examples for shaping urban futures
Countries in different contexts have responded to such transformations by strengthening constitutional protections for urban life. Latin America, with a high urban population, historic urban inequality and strong social movements, becomes an inspiration in many aspects. For example, Brazil’s 1988 Constitution introduces the “social function of property”, requiring land and urban space to serve social justice.
Not far from home, Nepal’s 2015 Constitution is one of the most ambitious devolution models in the world, giving local governments robust authority over 22 exclusive functions and an additional 15 concurrent functions including legislation, housing, land, markets, water, education, health, environmental management, climate adaptation, taxation and disaster response. These experiences show that urbanism centred on the Constitution is not theoretical — it is practical and implementable. There are examples at home, too, though still limited without stronger institutions and scaling. Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign advances deep decentralisation and participatory planning, now backed by India’s first state-level urban policy. Pune’s participatory budgeting is another strong example of citizen engagement.
What a constitutional city would look like
A constitutional city would be premised on the constitutional values of justice, equality, liberty, fraternity, socialism, and secularism, and base its future not only in economic terms, but of justice, dignity and quality of life for all.
This effort must begin with strengthened local democracy — municipalities with real financial autonomy, accountable leadership, and ward committees and even area sabhas. Second, urban planning would be rooted in spatial justice and inclusion, with master plans and zoning laws ensuring affordable housing, accessible public transport, mixed-use neighbourhoods, and should be prepared ground-up. Third, informal workers — 90 per cent of livelihoods like vendors, construction workers, waste pickers, domestic workers, gig workers — would be treated as equal citizens whose right to urban livelihood shapes street design, markets, mobility systems, and social protection. Protection and regularisation of informal settlements as improved housing should also be prioritised. The informality of our cities should not be criminalised, but recognised, regularised, and managed. Fourth, public spaces and urban institutions should be reclaimed as common goods: Streets, open spaces, parks, markets, libraries, footpaths, waterbodies, and other commons would remain accessible and safe for all, supported by reinvestment in public education, health, and transportation as the backbone of urban justice. Good-quality living in cities would be ensured by liveability standards such as clean air, water, and other essential resources. Fifth, urgently needed climate action should be led by cities at the local level, prioritising vulnerable communities, recognising climate adaptation as a constitutional duty to protect life and dignity.
The struggles of workers, the insecurity of slum residents, polluted air and water, shrinking public spaces, and exclusionary development are not administrative failures — they are constitutional failures. To defend the Constitution in practice, India must rebuild its cities through its values. As B R Ambedkar reminded us, the Constitution is a “living document”, its life depends on how we translate it into everyday urban policy. We, the people of India’s cities, need a re-imagination of rights, justice and dignity in the city — one rooted in the Constitution itself.
The writer is an urban practitioner and researcher focused on informality, inclusion, and equitable city planning in Indian cities
Share
