In India, the Mayor is the head of a municipal body that oversees cities and towns. The mayor is regarded as the city’s first citizen, and the manner of electing the Mayor and their tenure might differ from city to city. In Bengaluru, for example, the mayor is elected indirectly and serves a one-year term. In Mumbai, the Mayor is similarly chosen indirectly, but for a term of 2.5 years. Bhopal, on the other hand, has a directly elected Mayor with a five-year tenure. The need for a direct election of Mayors in Indian cities has been a topic of discussion in recent years. This is due to the growing recognition of the importance of empowering and strengthening the political executive of urban local governments.

Need For An Elected Mayor in India

• Lack of Empowered Mayors: Cities have lacked mayors with the authority to increase efficiency and productivity of urban governance. As a result, cities are not attaining their full potential.
• Commissioners Change Frequently: The municipal commissioners change frequently, causing confusion and a lack of continuity in their functioning. A tenure of less than a year is insufficient time to effect positive change in the city.
• Addressing Overcrowding Cities: Due to the lack of a single municipal authority and insufficient infrastructure spending, India’s cities face numerous issues. To solve these difficulties, an elected mayor can provide united leadership and decision-making.
• Short Tenure of Mayors: Mayors have fairly limited tenures in many states, making it difficult for them to make long-term reforms in huge metropolitan regions. For example, the mayor of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation can remain in office for two and a half years only.
• State Government Opposition: Some state governments are opposed to the idea of a strong mayor system and have used the poor performance of ULBs as an argument to replace direct mayor elections with an indirect system.
• Lack of Cooperation Among Elected Members and Bureaucrats: The current municipal government structure frequently causes friction between democratically elected councillors and the state-appointed chief executive, who is a bureaucrat. This can lead to non-cooperation, incompetence, and a never-ending struggle for control, causing the ULB to lose credibility.

Advantage of Elected Mayor in India

• Stability: As they are elected by the people rather than councillors, directly elected mayors provide more stable and secure leadership. This provides the mayor with a strong base of support and a clear mandate. The stability given by a directly elected mayor is critical in establishing good urban governance.
• Empowerment: Since they reflect the people will, directly elected mayors will have more confidence in making decisions. This empowers the mayor to make vital judgements and take decisive actions to solve the city’s needs. The empowerment of the directly elected mayor contributes to more effective municipal governance that is sensitive to the needs of the people.
• Representation: A directly elected mayor represents the entire city, but an indirectly elected mayor simply serves the region from where they were chosen. This broad representation guarantees that all people’ concerns are considered and that urban governance is more inclusive.
• Fixed Tenures: Fixed tenures for mayors provide better continuity than state-appointed bureaucrats who can be abruptly transferred. This stability allows the mayor to focus on longer-term goals and objectives, providing a clearer direction for municipal governance. Citizens benefit from the fixed tenures since they know their mayor will be in position for a specific time-period.
• Empowerment through Reservation: Many local government offices are reserved for SC, ST, and women. The mayor’s position may be reserved for a specific category with an indirectly elected mayor, yet the majority party may not have a suitable candidate. A directly elected mayor ensures that all views are heard in municipal administration by providing representation and empowerment to all groups.
• The spirit of the 74th Amendment Act: The directly elected mayor is consistent with the spirit of the 74th Amendment Act, which attempts to decentralise power and give local governments more autonomy. Because choices are made closer to the ground, decentralisation helps to ensure that urban governance is more effective and responsive to the demands of the people.
• Decentralisation: Unlike state governments, which hold the majority of power, a directly elected mayor will have the public mandate to operate local urban governance with all the essential authority. Because choices are made closer to the ground, decentralisation helps to ensure that urban governance is more effective and responsive to the demands of the people.
• Tackling Complicated Urban Issues: With urbanisation at its zenith, many complex issues such as congestion, slums, unplanned urban growth, and so on must be addressed. A governing body led by an elected representative will assist in addressing these new problems. An elected mayor, with a clear mandate from the people, is better positioned to address these complicated concerns and create solutions that benefit the entire community.

Challenges of Directly Elected Mayors

• Authoritarian Power: The direct election of a mayor may result in an authoritative use of power, where the mayor may prioritise their own views and ignore those of other members and stakeholders. This can lead to a lack of cooperation and collaboration in governance, hindering the development of the city.
• Costly Elections: Holding elections to select a mayor can be a costly affair, requiring significant financial resources. This can take away resources from other crucial areas of urban governance and lead to a misallocation of resources.
• Clash Between Members and Mayor: When a mayor is elected directly, there is a possibility of conflict between the mayor and other members of the local government. Such conflicts may arise especially when the mayor belongs to a political party other than the one which commands a majority in the council. Such conflicts can lead to a breakdown in communication and cooperation, resulting in inefficiency and ineffective governance.
• Overlapping of Powers: Direct elections can lead to overlapping of powers between the mayor and other members, causing confusion in the decision-making process and leading to inefficiency. This can also lead to delays in implementing crucial policies and projects for the city’s development.
• Failure of the System: There have been instances where the system of directly elected mayors has failed, such as in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. In these cases, the government reversed their decision to adopt this system, indicating that it may not always lead to successful outcomes.
• Fixed Tenures: Although the fixed tenures for mayors provide stability, they may also lead to a lack of accountability. If the mayor is not performing well, they may resist change and reforms, hindering the development of the city. This can also lead to a lack of incentive for the mayor to perform well, as their tenure is secured regardless of their performance.

2nd ARC Recommendation

• Combining Chairperson/Mayor functions: The functions of chairing the municipal council and exercising executive authority in urban local government should be combined in the same person, the Chairperson or Mayor.
• Direct Election: The Chairperson/Mayor should be directly elected by the residents through a city-wide election to ensure accountability and legitimacy.
• Chief Executive of Municipal Body: The Chairperson/Mayor will serve as the Chief Executive of the municipal body and have executive power to make decisions and carry out actions.
• Role of the Council: The elected Council should focus on functions such as budget approval, policy formulation, and oversight.
• Mayor’s Cabinet: In municipal corporations and metropolitan cities, the mayor should appoint a Cabinet, chosen from among the elected corporators. The Cabinet should not exceed 10% of the Corporation’s strength or 15 members, whichever is higher, and will exercise executive authority on matters delegated by the Mayor.

Way forward

• Provision for Mayor-in-Council: A private member bill has proposed the inclusion of a mayor-in-council, which would be nominated by the directly elected mayor. This council would play an executive role and has already been implemented in Kolkata, where it has performed well.
• Avoiding Conflicts: To prevent any conflict between the elected mayor and the municipal commissioner, the mayor should be designated as the executive head of the municipality.
• Careful Consideration Needed: Reforms in the urban governance system necessitate thorough thought to ensure that the solution chosen is appropriate and effective. This necessitates a thorough examination of the current system and its issues, as well as an assessment of the possible impact of any reforms.
• A Political Option, not a Constitutional Edict: While it is vital in India to create an empowered and accountable political administration for cities, a directly elected mayor should not be imposed as a constitutional decree. Instead, it should be a democratic choice that cities can make depending on their unique needs and circumstances. 
• The Importance of Tailored Solutions: Each city has its own set of unique issues, strengths, and limitations, and what works well in one may not work well in another. As a result, rather than imposing a general solution, it is critical to tailor solutions to the individual circumstances of each municipal corporation. 

Conclusion

The direct election of a mayor is gaining popularity around the world and has become a popular model for cities to adopt. In India, the need for this system is even more pressing, as the current urban governance system is in need of significant reforms to become democratic and decentralised. The direct election of a mayor can play a significant role in achieving this goal, as it ensures that the person in charge of the city is accountable to the residents and has a direct mandate from them. It is crucial that India makes a sincere effort to implement this system in order to have a more democratic and effective governance of its urban areas.