Do state-sponsored urban missions strengthen or weaken the autonomy of Urban Local Bodies envisaged under the 74th Constitutional Amendment? Discuss.

The 74th Constitutional Amendment (1992) made Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) "institutions of self-government" (Article 243W) and listed 18 functions for them in the Twelfth Schedule [2]. State-sponsored missions such as Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister's Integrated Urban Development Mission (CMIUDM) give ULBs money they lack. However, the state keeps the power to choose projects, so these missions build ULB capacity but reduce their autonomy.

How state missions strengthen ULBs

• Fiscal support: Under CMIUDM 2026-27, the state pays ₹124.29 crore of a ₹138.11 crore package for 680 Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) projects, about 90% [1].
• Faster delivery: GCC's proposal went to the state committee on 13 October and was sanctioned within about two weeks [1].
• Coordination: State backing helps GCC bring together the Highways Department, the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the Cantonment Board and Chennai Metro Rail Limited (CMRL) on the Airport–Kathipara "Gateway of Chennai" corridor [1].
• Neighbourhood reach: Most of the works are local road relaying in zones such as Thiru Vi Ka Nagar and Ambattur, not just showcase projects [1].

How they weaken ULB autonomy

• State gatekeeping: A state committee and TUFIDCO decide which city projects get funded. The ULB only proposes, and the state decides [1].
• Functions without control: The CAG found that Uttar Pradesh ULBs fully controlled only 1 of 18 Twelfth Schedule functions and had a limited role in 11 [2].
• Uneven devolution: In Tamil Nadu, fire services were transferred to corporations and municipalities, but not to GCC [4].
• Construction without upkeep: Missions pay for building assets, not for maintaining or protecting them. The CAG recorded widespread encroachment on Chennai's road margins that went unchecked because GCC did not act [3]. Grants alone cannot fix this gap in capacity.
• Fiscal dependence: With about 90% of the money coming from the state [1], ULBs have less reason to raise their own revenue, and the elected council's role shrinks.

State missions are therefore a double-edged instrument: they deliver assets quickly, but the state keeps the key decisions. They should act as a bridge to stronger ULBs, not a substitute for them. This needs three steps:

• formula-based transfers, as recommended by the State Finance Commission (Article 243Y);
• ULB-led project selection through Metropolitan Planning Committees (Article 243ZE);
• investment in ULB capacity to maintain and protect assets.

These steps would make missions enablers of the self-governing cities the 74th Amendment envisaged, in line with SDG 11.