UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2 : Urban Local Bodies and Right to Information Act (Week 155)

QUESTION 2

Discuss the constitutional and legal challenges involved in bringing autonomous sports organisations under the ambit of transparency and accountability laws.

QUESTION 1: “Urban Local Bodies in India continue to remain financially and administratively dependent on state governments despite constitutional status.” Suggest measures to strengthen urban local governance.

Relevance: The question is relevant because rapid urbanisation, municipal finance constraints, weak decentralisation, and implementation gaps in the 74th Constitutional Amendment are recurring governance concerns. It connects with issues such as smart cities, urban infrastructure, local democracy, and cooperative federalism. The topic is important for GS Paper 2 as UPSC can focus on decentralisation and institutional reforms.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The third tier of government — comprising rural and urban local bodies — is prominently absent in the federalism debates, which tend to focus exclusively on the Centre and the states.

— Urban Governance plays a vital role in shaping the physical and social identity of metropolitan areas by affecting the quantity and effectiveness of local services. Urban local bodies, often known as municipalities or municipal corporations, are public institutions designed to maintain and manage urban areas.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

Reasons for Dependence of ULBs

— Many states have not delegated all 18 functions outlined in the Twelfth Schedule to municipalities. State-controlled parastatal entities frequently oversee urban planning, transportation, water supply, and development.

— ULBs have limited self-generated funding and rely significantly on handouts from state and federal governments. According to a CAG audit, government grants, rather than local taxes, account for the majority of municipal funds. For example, in the United States and China, which have diametrically opposed political systems, approximately two-thirds of government employees work for local governments. In India, slightly more than 10% do. As a result, in the former, the third tier provides the majority of public services, while India provides very few.

— ULBs face manpower shortages, limited urban planning experience, and insufficient technical capacity. CAG studies have shown significant staffing gaps in municipalities.

— Property tax collection is still ineffective due to low valuations, political influence, and obsolete records. Municipal budgets in India are still far behind global standards.

Measures to Strengthen Urban Local Governance

— States should transfer all Twelfth Schedule functions along with finances and functionaries in keeping with the spirit of the 74th Amendment.

— Strengthening municipal finance includes reforming property taxation using GIS mapping and digital assessment, as well as promoting municipal bonds and novel financing options.

— Create professional municipal cadres and improve technical knowledge of urban planning, waste management, mobility, and climate resilience.

Conclusion:

— ULBs in India are caught in a low-equilibrium political economy trap. While higher tiers (both Centre and states) use their devolution powers to control and influence lower levels, the latter are both unable and unwilling to tax their proximate citizens. The result is chronic resource constraints with high dependency: a lever of political and administrative control of local governments by states that severely constrains their autonomy.

— Greater financial resources became available to ULBs through Central government schemes for urban development such as the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and its successor, the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), that tied funding to states and cities committing themselves to structural reforms. Successive Finance Commissions have also allocated more resources to the third tier in recent years.

(Source: How empowering India’s local governments can kickstart innovation and growth, http://www.iipa.org.in)

Points to Ponder

How does excessive state government control weaken the autonomy of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)?

How can metropolitan governance be improved in rapidly expanding cities?

Related Previous Year Questions

‘‘The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially.’’ Comment. (2023)

Assess the importance of the Panchayat system in India as a part of local government. Apart from government grants, what sources the Panchayats can look out for financing development projects? (2018)

QUESTION 2: Discuss the constitutional and legal challenges involved in bringing autonomous sports organisations under the ambit of transparency and accountability laws.

Relevance: The question gains relevance due to the ongoing debate over whether bodies like the BCCI, despite performing public functions, should fall under transparency laws such as the RTI Act. It links constitutional principles like accountability, judicial interpretation, public function doctrine, and governance reforms.

Note: This is not a model UPSC answer. It only provides you with a thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— Recently, the Central Information Commission held that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the law.

— Bringing autonomous sports organisations under transparency and accountability regulations causes a conflict between maintaining independent sports administration and protecting the public interest.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

Constitutional and legal challenges

— The interpretation of Article 12 of the Constitution, which defines the “State”. In the historic Zed Telefilms Ltd v Union of India judgement, the Supreme Court ruled that the BCCI is not a “state” under Article 12 since it was not established by statute and is not significantly controlled or financed by the government. This limits the direct applicability of constitutional responsibilities regarding transparency and fundamental rights.

— The meaning of “public authority” in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The rule applies to bodies created by law or substantially funded or controlled by the government. In its 2026 finding, the Central Information Commission (CIC) determined that the BCCI does not meet these requirements because it is a private society formed under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act that functions without significant government influence or support.

— Another problem is balancing institutional autonomy and public accountability. Sports organisations claim that excessive governmental intervention undermines independent operation and violates international sporting rules that oppose government dominance in sports administration.

— The National Sports Governance Act of 2025 added to the difficulty by extending RTI responsibilities exclusively to sports organisations that receive significant government funds. The BCCI, which is financially autonomous, stayed outside of this structure.

— The CIC found that the BCCI’s internal structure does not reflect governmental control. Its office bearers are elected internally under its own rules, no government nominee sits on its committees, and government approval is not required for its decisions. “The Rules and Regulations of the BCCI have neither any statutory force nor it has any statutory powers to make rules or regulations having statutory force,” the Commission noted. The order states that “there exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI” and therefore “the status of Public Authority cannot be given to the BCCI.”

Conclusion:

— The Lodha Committee had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI. The Law Commission, in its 275th report in 2018, also recommended that sports bodies performing public functions be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act, as it “exercises state like powers” and “virtually acts as a National Sports Federation”. But none of these recommendations translated into binding law.

— The RTI Act’s definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) covers bodies established under the Constitution or constituted through legislation or government notification. It also includes bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government. The CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy these conditions. It is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, “a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration.”

(Source: Why BCCI is not covered under the Right to Information Act)

Points to Ponder

What constitutes a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act?

Why is the BCCI often viewed as a body exercising significant public influence despite being a private organisation?

Related Previous Year Question

“Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have a profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. (2020)

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for May 2026. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨

Previous Mains Answer Practice

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 154)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 3 (Week 155)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 154)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 153)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 154)

UPSC Essentials: Mains answer practice — GS 1 (Week 153)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.