CURE Bill, 2026: Reform or Recentralisation?

Y. Babji, Legal Practitioner

Urban governance in India is at a crossroads. Rapid urbanisation, climate risks, infrastructure shortfalls, digital transformation and rising citizen expectations demand a modern legal framework that ensures efficient, accountable and participatory municipal administration. Hyderabad, one of the country’s fastest-growing metropolitan regions, faces these pressures acutely.

It is against this backdrop that the Telangana Government has published the Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026 to replace the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and invited public suggestions. Modernising municipal law is both necessary and welcome. But reform must be measured against the constitutional principles that protect local self-government. The essential question is not whether the 1955 Act should be replaced, it should, but whether the CURE Bill strengthens urban democracy or erodes the autonomy of Urban Local Bodies guaranteed under Part IX-A of the Constitution. 

A short history of municipal governance in Hyderabad 

Organised municipal administration in Hyderabad dates back more than 150 years to the Nizam’s era, managing sanitation, roads, public health and municipal taxation. 

After integration into the Indian Union in 1948, civic administration was unified. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 merged Hyderabad and Secunderabad into the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, creating one of India’s most comprehensive municipal statutes. 

In 2007 the MCH expanded to become the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation by incorporating surrounding municipalities and gram panchayats. Despite territorial expansion, the legal foundation remained the 1955 Act, amended over time.

Several surrounding municipalities were merged into GHMC and soon after that the city's municipal administration was trifurcated into Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Cyberabad Municipal Corporation and Malkajgiri Municipal Corporation. Of course, a Future City is currently in its early planning, administrative setup and foundational infrastructure stage. 

The Government of Telangana, aligned with India’s India@2047 vision, promoted the CORE, PURE and RARE development ideas. This likely prompted the replacement of the 1955 City Municipal Act with the Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026. 

Why the CURE Bill? 

The Government cites pressing needs that the old statute cannot meet (1) Integrated metropolitan planning (2) Climate-resilient development (3) Digital governance (4) Coordinated infrastructure and unified service delivery and (5) Improved inter-agency coordination and sustainable urban management. 

These objectives are laudable. But modern legislation must also adhere to constitutional philosophy. 

Constitutional status of Urban Local Bodies 

Before the 74th Amendment, municipalities existed at the pleasure of States and often suffered suspension, dissolved councils, deferred elections and curtailed powers. 

The Constitution (Seventy-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 (effective 1 June 1993) changed that by inserting Part IX-A (Articles 243P–243ZG) and the Twelfth Schedule into the Constitution. The amendment envisaged vibrant democratic units of self-government with regular elections, financial autonomy and functional devolution. Article 243W empowers State Legislatures to devolve powers to municipalities so they function as institutions of local self-government. 

The Twelfth Schedule lists eighteen functions including urban planning, land use regulation, water supply, sanitation, roads, public health and more intended primarily for democratically elected municipal bodies. 

The spirit of decentralisation 

The constitutional philosophy is straightforward. Governance should move closer to citizens. The doctrine of subsidiarity requires decisions affecting citizens be taken, where possible, at the lowest competent level. Municipalities are thus intended to be autonomous institutions of self-government i.e. State role should be supervisory, not interventionist and that power should travel from State → Municipality → Ward → Citizen, not the reverse. 

Does the CURE Bill reverse this philosophy? 

A close reading of the draft Bill raises constitutional concerns. It proposes an elaborate metropolitan governance framework with multiple authorities, expanded regulatory powers and enhanced supervisory mechanisms. While such structures may improve administrative coordination, they can also dilute the democratic mandate of elected municipal representatives if decision-making shifts from elected councils to State-controlled authorities. 

The Constitution does not contemplate municipalities as mere administrative appendages. If integrated governance becomes centralisation in practice, the CURE Bill risks undermining the core objective of the 74th Amendment - to constitutionalise local democracy. The final outcome depends on the Bill’s text and the actual devolution of powers to elected bodies. Therefore, public consultation is crucial. 

Financial burden on households 

Media reports suggest the draft Bill contemplates revised property taxation, increased user charges, environmental compliance costs, fines, higher licensing fees and stricter obligations for property owners. While urban infrastructure needs funding, public finance must respect three constitutional principles: equity, affordability and transparency. 

Citizens will rightly ask 3 questions (1) Will service levels improve proportionately? (2) Will accountability increase? And (3) Will taxpayers get measurable value? 

If financial burdens rise without corresponding improvements in services and transparency, public resistance will follow. Hyderabad’s residents already pay property tax, water and sewerage charges, licence fees and development levies. Any new or higher charges must meet standards of fairness and proportionality. 

Accountability must accompany taxation 

Municipal governance must not become merely a revenue-collection engine. Citizens expect uninterrupted water supply, scientific waste management, durable roads, effective drainage and flood mitigation, transparent building permissions and responsive grievance redressal. Every additional charge or tax must be matched by measurable service improvements and clear accountability mechanisms. 

Democratic deficit 

Under the constitutional scheme, the elected Municipal Council should be the principal policy-making authority. Vesting significant powers in appointed officials or external agencies without parallel democratic accountability risks making decision-making more distant. Efficiency is essential, but it cannot substitute democracy. 

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the 73rd and 74th Amendments are meant to deepen participatory democracy. Hence, State legislation must preserve the identity of municipalities as institutions of self-government. 

Integration versus autonomy 

Hyderabad’s governance landscape includes multiple agencies — municipal corporations, water and sewerage board, electricity utilities, traffic police, development authorities, disaster management and transport bodies — that often operate in silos.

Integration and coordination are necessary. But integration should mean collaboration, not centralisation. The constitutional balance is enabling cooperation while safeguarding municipal autonomy. 

Five constitutional tests for the CURE Bill 

To pass constitutional muster and win public trust, the Bill should satisfy five tests: 

1. Does it strengthen elected municipalities?

2. Does it increase citizen participation?

3. Does it preserve financial autonomy?

4. Does it improve accountability?

5. Does it genuinely implement the spirit of Part IX-A? 

A “yes” to these questions would mark the Bill as progressive reform. A “no” risks turning it into an instrument of administrative centralisation dressed as integrated governance. 

Closing thoughts 

The GHMC Act, 1955 needs updating. Hyderabad in 2026 is a very different city than in 1955. Climate resilience, metropolitan mobility, digital governance, environmental sustainability and modern infrastructure demand an updated legal framework. But constitutional history warns us. The 74th Amendment did more than reorganise municipal functions as it constitutionalised local democracy. 

The CURE Bill’s success should be measured not only by administrative efficiency but by whether it strengthens democratic participation, municipal autonomy and public accountability. A modern municipal statute should not merely build smarter cities; it should cultivate stronger local democracy and an engaged citizenry. The true test of reform is power dispersed, not concentrated — enabling institutions closest to the people to make meaningful decisions about the places where they live. 

In keeping with the decentralisation spirit of the Constitution, the CURE framework should move from ‘Integrated Governance’ to a model of Coordinated Governance and Collaborative Governance, wherein strategic coordination rests with the CURE Governance Council and Executive, while operational powers and service delivery remain with constitutionally empowered local bodies through structured collaboration.

 

The Great Indian Identity Puzzle!

Y Babji, Advocate

If a Passport is not proof of Citizenship, then what is? Understanding India’s identity documents and the law behind them is like solving a puzzle.

The recent clarification by the Ministry of External Affairs that an Indian passport is "merely a travel document and not proof of citizenship" has sparked widespread debate across the country. For generations, Indians have regarded the passport as the highest form of official identity issued by the Government. It is accepted worldwide, issued only after police verification and often required for visas, immigration, banking and countless official transactions. Understandably, many citizens were surprised to hear that it is not, in the strict legal sense, proof of Indian citizenship.

The controversy has also exposed a larger issue - many of us use Aadhaar, PAN, Voter ID, Passport and Driving Licence interchangeably without understanding that each serves a different legal purpose under different statutes. While all of them help establish identity in one context or another, none was created for the same objective.

The debate, therefore, presents an excellent opportunity to understand an important legal distinction between identity, resident, nationality and citizenship.

Citizenship Is a Legal Status, Not an Identity Card

Unlike several countries that issue a formal citizenship certificate to every citizen, India has never adopted such a system. Indian citizenship is not represented by a single universal document. Rather, it is a legal status acquired under the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act, 1955.

Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution laid down who became citizens at the commencement of the Constitution, while Parliament enacted the Citizenship Act, 1955 to regulate acquisition and termination of citizenship thereafter.

Under this law, citizenship may be acquired by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation or incorporation of territory. Since people become citizens through different legal routes, the documents establishing their citizenship also differ. Consequently, there is no single document that every Indian can produce as definitive proof of citizenship. This is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of Indian law.

Why Did the Govt Say a Passport Is Not Proof of Citizenship?

The Government's clarification was not a sudden change in policy but a statement of existing law.

A passport is issued under the Passports Act, 1967, whose primary purpose is to regulate international travel. The Act provides for the issue, renewal, suspension and impounding of passports. Its objective is not to determine citizenship disputes.

Certainly, before issuing a passport, the authorities conduct police verification and satisfy themselves about the applicant's identity and nationality. Therefore, possession of an Indian passport creates a strong presumption that the holder is an Indian citizen. However, if citizenship itself becomes disputed before a court or competent authority, the passport alone is not legally conclusive.

This distinction between a travel document and proof of citizenship has existed in law for decades. The recent statement merely reiterated this legal position.

Then What Documents Can Establish Indian Citizenship?

Since citizenship is acquired in different ways, the evidence also varies from person to person.

For persons who obtained citizenship through registration or naturalisation, the Certificate of Registration or Certificate of Naturalisation issued under the Citizenship Act serves as direct evidence.

For persons born in India, citizenship may be established through a combination of documents such as the birth certificate, parental citizenship records and other supporting evidence, depending upon the law applicable on the date of birth. This is important because the rules governing citizenship by birth have changed several times since 1950.

Likewise, persons claiming citizenship by descent may rely upon their parents' citizenship documents, birth records and registration with Indian authorities wherever required.

Thus, citizenship is often established through a collection of legally relevant documents rather than by producing one universal identity card.

Understanding the Different Purposes of India's Identity Documents

One reason for public confusion is that almost every government-issued document contains a photograph and personal details. Yet each document was created for an entirely different statutory purpose.

Aadhaar: Proof of Identity, Not Citizenship

The Aadhaar number is governed by the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016. It was introduced primarily to enable efficient delivery of welfare benefits and provide a unique biometric identity for residents of India.

The crucial word here is resident, not citizen. Even certain foreign nationals residing in India for the prescribed period are eligible to obtain Aadhaar. Therefore, Aadhaar is excellent proof of identity and address, but it is not proof of Indian citizenship.

Passport: A Travel Document with High Evidentiary Value

The passport, governed by the Passports Act, 1967, enables international travel and identifies the holder as an Indian national for travel purposes. It is one of the most trusted government-issued documents and is accepted worldwide. However, legally speaking, its primary function is to facilitate international travel. While it carries substantial evidentiary value regarding nationality, it is not conclusive proof of citizenship if the issue is challenged before a competent authority.

Voter ID: Evidence of Electoral Eligibility

The Elector's Photo Identity Card (EPIC), commonly called the Voter ID, is issued under the framework of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Only Indian citizens are entitled to be enrolled as voters. Consequently, a Voter ID is strong evidence that the Election Commission has recognised the holder as an eligible elector. Nevertheless, electoral registration itself does not conclusively determine citizenship if legal proceedings establish otherwise.

PAN Card: A Tax Identification Number

The Permanent Account Number (PAN) is issued under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Its sole purpose is taxation and financial regulation. PAN cards are issued not only to Indian citizens but also to foreign nationals, companies, firms, trusts and other entities having tax obligations in India. Therefore, possessing a PAN card says nothing about one's citizenship.

Driving Licence: Permission to Drive

Driving licences are issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Their purpose is straightforward i.e. to certify that a person is legally competent to drive specified categories of motor vehicles.

Foreign nationals legally residing in India may also obtain driving licences. Accordingly, a driving licence is proof of driving authorisation and identity, but not of citizenship.

The Birth Certificate: An Important Record, But Not an Automatic Proof of Citizenship

Among all civil documents, the birth certificate occupies a unique position. It is frequently mistaken as a certificate of citizenship, although legally it serves a different purpose.

Births in India are registered under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, substantially modernised by the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023. A birth certificate officially records three fundamental facts - the date of birth, the place of birth and the identity of the parents. These facts become extremely important because citizenship by birth depends upon the provisions of the Citizenship Act applicable on the date of birth. The law has evolved considerably over time.

Every person born in India between 26 January 1950 and 30 June 1987 generally became an Indian citizen by birth irrespective of the nationality of the parents.

For those born between 1 July 1987 and 2 December 2004, citizenship by birth required that at least one parent be an Indian citizen at the time of birth.

The law became more restrictive for persons born on or after 3 December 2004. Today, a child born in India acquires citizenship by birth only if one parent is an Indian citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant.

Thus, the birth certificate establishes the factual circumstances of birth, but whether those facts translate into Indian citizenship depends entirely upon the Citizenship Act as it stood on the relevant date. For this reason, a birth certificate is often one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting citizenship, but it is not, by itself, a citizenship certificate.

Why Doesn't India Issue a Universal Citizenship Card?

This question naturally arises whenever such debates occur. Historically, India has never maintained a nationwide population register or national identity system solely for establishing citizenship. Instead, citizenship has traditionally been inferred from civil registration records, birth records, electoral rolls, passports and other government documents.

Given India's enormous population, historical migration patterns and evolving citizenship laws, successive governments relied upon multiple official records rather than introducing a single citizenship certificate for every citizen.

As a result, determining citizenship in disputed cases often involves examining several documents together rather than relying upon one card or certificate.

How Do Other Countries Prove Citizenship?

Several Western countries adopt a different approach.

In the United States, both the U.S. Passport and Certificates of Citizenship or Naturalization are recognised as primary proof of citizenship. A valid American passport is generally accepted as conclusive evidence for most official purposes.

Canada similarly recognises the Canadian Passport and the Citizenship Certificate as definitive proof, while birth certificates establish citizenship for those born in Canada.

In Australia, citizenship may be established through an Australian Passport, an Australian Citizenship Certificate or relevant birth records.

The United Kingdom does not issue a universal citizenship card either, but British passports and certificates of naturalisation or registration are generally accepted as primary evidence of citizenship.

Among Asian countries, Singapore combines its National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) with comprehensive national registration records, making verification relatively straightforward. Japan, on the other hand, relies on its family registration system (Koseki) together with the Japanese passport.

Compared to these systems, India's approach remains more document-based than certificate-based.

Identity Is Not the Same as Citizenship

The recent passport controversy has highlighted an important lesson in constitutional and administrative law. Identity, residency, taxation, voting rights, driving privileges and citizenship are separate legal concepts. Each government-issued document serves a specific statutory purpose and derives its authority from a different law.

Aadhaar identifies residents. PAN identifies taxpayers. Driving licences authorise driving. Voter IDs identify electors. Passports facilitate international travel. None of these documents, by themselves, was designed to function as a universal certificate of citizenship.

Ultimately, Indian citizenship flows not from a plastic card or booklet but from the Constitution, the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the legal facts surrounding an individual's birth or acquisition of citizenship. In most situations, multiple documents read together establish that status.

The debate surrounding passports has therefore done more than generate headlines - it has reminded citizens that the legal architecture of identity in India is far more nuanced than commonly understood. Appreciating these distinctions is essential not only for legal literacy but also for informed public discourse in the World's largest democracy.