The 74th Constitutional Amendment promised devolution to urban local bodies, but three decades later, the promise remains largely unfulfilled.

Q. The 74th Constitutional Amendment promised devolution to urban local bodies, but three decades later, the promise remains largely unfulfilled. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The 74th Amendment (1992) inserted Part IX-A and the Twelfth Schedule, granting municipalities constitutional status and envisaging functional, financial and administrative devolution [1]. Three decades on, the democratic form has been secured, but the substance of self-government remains thin.

What the Amendment delivered - Constitutional permanence: regular municipal elections through State Election Commissions, with reservation for women and SC/STs [1]. - Planning architecture created — Ward Committees, District Planning Committees (Art. 243ZD) and Metropolitan Planning Committees (Art. 243ZE) [1].

Functional devolution remains partial - The Twelfth Schedule's 18 functions are enabling, not mandatory; many States retain water supply, town planning and housing with parastatals and development authorities [1]. - MPCs are largely non-operational, so metropolitan planning stays fragmented — despite cities generating about 60% of GDP on 3% of land [2].

Fiscal dependence is the deepest gap - Municipal own revenues are only around 0.6% of GDP, against roughly 7.4% in Brazil, leaving ULBs reliant on transfers [3]. - Property tax under-assessment and a nascent municipal bond market limit borrowing capacity [3]. - Union support is also thin: MoHUA's Budget share fell to its lowest in five years, and 2025-26 estimates of about ₹96,777 crore were cut to ₹57,203 crore at revised stage [4][5].

Administrative and political constraints - Mayors have short tenures and limited executive authority, while the Commissioner is State-appointed; municipal cadres and technical staff are chronically short. - Flagship missions (AMRUT 2.0, PMAY-U 2.0, SBM-U 2.0) remain scheme-driven and sector-specific, reinforcing vertical silos instead of building ULB capacity [4].

Thus the Amendment democratised city government without empowering it. Activity-mapping of all 18 functions, empowered directly-elected mayors, credible State Finance Commission awards and untied, outcome-linked transfers can convert form into function — making cities the constitutionally intended third tier and genuine engines of Viksit Bharat 2047 [4].

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 — Part IX-A, Twelfth Schedule's 18 functions, State Election Commissions, Articles 243ZD and 243ZE 2. NITI Aayog–ADB, Cities as Engines of Growth (2022), Executive Summary — cities occupy 3% of land and contribute 60% of GDP; lack of common planning vision across institutions 3. RBI, Report on Municipal Finances (2024) — municipal own revenue ~0.6% of GDP versus 7.4% in Brazil; weak own-source revenue and transfer dependence 4. Standing Committee on Housing and Urban Affairs, Ninth Report (2025-26), presented 12 March 2026 — missions "scheme-driven and sector-specific", declining MoHUA budget share, long-term roadmap to Viksit Bharat 2047 5. PRS Legislative Research, Demand for Grants 2025-26 Analysis: Housing and Urban Affairs — budget estimate versus revised estimate gap and utilisation shortfalls