Mayoralty in India: No Case for More Powers
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162X.1970.tb00711.x |
| Published date | 01 April 1970 |
| Date | 01 April 1970 |
| Author | P. A. James,A. Muralidhar Rao |
Mayoralty in India: No Case for More
Powers
By DR. P.
A.
JAMES
and
A.
M
URALIDHAR
RAO
Dr.
James is Reader,
and
Mr.
Muralidhar
Rao a
Lecturer,
in Public Administration
at Osmania University,
Hydcrabad,
India.
THE institution
of
Mayor in India has some legendary charm associated with
it. No office appears more ostentatious
than
that
of
the Mayorality.
The
evolution
of
the institution is largely
the
product
of
tradition, political
wrangles and administrative contrivance.
The
quest for efficiency in municipal
institutions
and
the
political developments in the country prior to Indepcn-
dencc must have in no small measure influenced the development
of
the
office
of
the Mayor.
The
prestige the office
of
the
Mayor carried did not
disturb
the
minds
of
politicians or thinking
of
the State Governments,
and
for long no serious controversy was waged as to its status quo.
In the recent past, perhaps diverse forces in society, such as change
of
values governing social institutions, democratisation after Independence, and
democratic decentralisation in relation to the rural bodies in a large measure
seem to have brought into focus questions like: Should the
"Mayor"
be the
executive authority? Should his
term
be extended?
The
answers to these
questions should not depend on the craving
of
some politicians to grant
additional powers to the Mayor.
It
becomes necessary to visualize the exact
role
that
the
Mayor is expected to play.
The
suggested changes should
necessarily take into account vital issues involved such as, efficiency
of
administration, use
of
expertise, fulfilment
of
goals
of
administration,
possible abuse
of
power by the Mayors, the need to maintain democratic
values and realisation
of
public aspirations.
Present
Position
In
almost all the cines
of
India, the mayor is elected by
the
Council.
Indirect election
of
the Mayor
due
to efflux
of
time seems to have gained some
sanctity.
In
many
of
the
Corporations, the Mayor is elected by a simple
majority,
but
in
"Kaval"
Itowns the election is by proportional representation
by the single transferable vote system. Suggestions for the direct election
of
the
Mayor are
of
recent origin, and do not seem to have gained
much
im-
mediate support despite their frequent repetition.
This
is evident from
the
proposal failing to receive endorsement by the first mayors' conference held
at Hyderabad.z
Under
the
Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955,3
the
mayor is
entitled to resign his office by giving notice in writing to
the
Corporation.
ＭｾｾｾｾＭｾＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭＭ
I
"Kaval"
refers to
the
following towns:
Kanpur,
Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra
and
Lucknow.
2Shirole, B. L., Proceedings of
the
First
All
India
Mayors Conference, Quarterly
Journal of Local Self-Government Institute, Bombay,
January
1959,
pp.
458, 461-77.
JSection 92 (1) (hereafter called
the
Hydcrabad
Act).
121
To continue reading
Request your trial