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.