Invisibility Cloak on ULB Elections: Why Local Polls Matter More Than We Think?

Local elections in India

There aren’t perhaps many city-level elections that make national news as much as the national elections that make the city-level news. There was a WhatsApp conversation recently where someone asked,

“What is this Registration of Electors Rules, 1960? Seems to be a key legislation related to ongoing municipal elections and missing names in the voter list.”

The response was quick—an Instagram link, followed by another message:

“I am sure they must have defined it.”

This exchange sounded significant not because of what it contained but because of what it revealed—an instinct to look for clarity in places where none exists; a need to “get hold of” and “make sense of” definitions, processes, and rules that should already be accessible. And yet, in the case of local elections, even the most basic information is difficult to come by. As the municipal elections in any city approach, citizens are filled with questions that ideally shouldn’t have existed in a functioning democracy. But they persist. Questions that point to the missing infrastructure of civic knowledge. Not roads, not bridges, not parking lots, but the simple safety infrastructure of how, when, and why our city is governed the way it is.

Who Runs the Elections?

Most of us know the Election Commission of India—the body that runs the grand general elections every five years. But ask about the State Election Commission, the institution responsible for municipal elections, and one is likely to get blank stares. The confusion is understandable. In a country where local elections should be the backbone of governance, they often feel like an afterthought, especially in smaller cities. Unlike national elections, which dominate prime-time debates and front pages, municipal elections pass by quietly. They are announced with minimal fanfare, contested with little scrutiny, and concluded with barely any public attention—except for those contesting and a few informed citizens.

There doesn’t seem to be a rationale, a pattern, or a schedule to organise these elections. In Tamil Nadu, Urban Local Body (ULB) elections happened in February 2022, 10 years after the last elections! While in Uttarakhand, they finally happened this year, delayed since 2023 due to delimitation and reservation processes. Ideally, municipal elections are supposed to be held every five years, but this doesn’t seem to be the case in most states. In Maharashtra, cities have been waiting for a new city government for the last three years. In Jharkhand, the High Court had to intervene and order the state government to conduct municipal elections within four months. Similarly, in Haryana, municipal elections have been long overdue, with the state government planning to hold them by 2nd March this year. This inconsistency is a significant issue plaguing local elections across India.

Promises, Manifestos, and the Vanishing Act of Accountability

When a new mayor or councillor takes office, what would happen next? Ideally, they should be accountable for delivering on their campaign promises. But that presumes campaign promises are made and clearly documented in the first place. In many Indian cities, local election manifestos are often either nonexistent or generic enough to mean everything and nothing at the same time. Public transport is mentioned, but with no specifics on how, when, or through what funding. Many make promises, which they ideally shouldn’t be making as the actions are not within their jurisdiction. A mayoral candidate had made a promise of installing 5 lakh CCTV cameras in Dehradun, a city whose population is ~3% of Delhi. Delhi, as of this news article, had coverage of 2.6 lakh CCTV cameras. So a city that is 3% of the size of Delhi is promised to be given cameras—200% of the number of CCTVs present in Delhi.

This issue of vague promises and lack of accountability is widespread. In Chhattisgarh, for example, political parties have released manifestos with numerous promises, ranging from property tax reductions to free sanitary pads for students. However, the challenge lies in holding these parties accountable for fulfilling these promises after the elections. Accountability is not just about whether a road gets fixed. It is about who we hold responsible when it doesn’t. When traffic worsens, when waterlogging persists, when trees disappear overnight in the name of “beautification”—who answers? Is it the municipal corporation? The mayor? The councillor? Or is it the invisible hand of bureaucrats making decisions that no one voted for?

However, an initiative in Dehradun has set a precedent for other cities on how there can be citizen-led accountability in local governance. By organising the first ever “Mayor Samvad” before the city’s ULB elections, the Dehradun Citizen’s Forum came together to voice their concerns regarding mere promises. Comprising of hundreds of active citizens, DCF pushed for more tangible change to address civic issues and demand sustainable development from their leaders.

Who Makes the Decisions? The Bureaucrats or the Elected Leaders?

Another aspect that colours the experience of the local elections is the tension between bureaucratic control and elected representation. While councillors are elected, the administration is run by national/state-level bureaucrats. This leads to a strange paradox: citizens think that they are electing representatives who will carry out actions that represent their aspirations. However, most critical actions in their cities, such as land acquisitions, infrastructure projects, and transport policies, get driven by bureaucratic orders rather than public mandates. This situation is further exacerbated by the governance framework surrounding municipal corporations. A 2015 NITI Aayog report highlighted the ‘discord between elected and appointed officials, as the former do not have the real power in the affairs of the cities.’ In many municipalities, state-appointed commissioners wield significant control, relegating elected mayors and councillors to largely ceremonial roles with little legislative power. This lack of authority hampers effective decision-making and stifles local initiatives that could drive economic growth and service delivery.

Party Without Symbols/The Dilemma of Party Symbols

Another issue in local elections has been the practice of voting without party symbols in certain Indian states, such as Goa, Bihar and Jharkhand. This approach, aimed at reducing party politics in local governance, has led to unintended consequences. While the practice weakens party influence at the grassroots level, as evident in Bihar’s municipal elections back in December 2022, it also creates transparency concerns. Voters often struggle to identify candidates without familiar party symbols, especially in areas with low literacy rates. This confusion can result in uninformed decision-making. Candidates may also maintain unofficial party connections, potentially leading to hidden affiliations and manipulation by powerful local leaders.

The Silent Voter and the Election That Almost Doesn’t Exist

Voter turnout for local elections remains dismally low across Indian cities. It’s not just apathy; it’s a quiet resignation to a system that feels inaccessible. Even research studies have delved into why citizens do not vote in municipal elections: people have gone years without seeing a clear link between their vote and visible change in their cities. This has translated into a feeling that any engagement with decision-making for their cities is wishful thinking. This disengagement is further exacerbated by several factors. For instance, there’s often a lack of awareness about the importance of municipal elections and the roles of local bodies. Many voters are not fully aware of the significance of these elections or how they impact their daily lives.

Another factor that worsens the already low voter turnout is the glaring problem of missing or inaccurate voter names. In Uttarakhand’s recent ULB elections, many eligible voters found themselves missing on the voters list, despite the fact that they had voted in the Lok Sabha elections less than a year ago! Such mismanagement by the State Election Commission, marked by administrative errors and wrongful deletions, disenfranchises genuine voters and raises concerns about the integrity of electoral rolls. While some voters find themselves missing, on the flip side, some spontaneously resurrect from thin air! The challenge of “ghost voters” or duplicate entries in electoral rolls continues to plague the electoral process even at the municipal level due to inefficiency and lack of transparency in voter roll verification, revision, and management. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), in the latest municipal elections conducted in 2022, had to purge over 5 lakh duplicate and fraudulent entries from the voter rolls as part of the National Electoral Roll Purification (NERP) program. 

When such fundamental lapses persist, voter disengagement is hardly surprising. If citizens feel that their votes may not even be counted correctly, or worse, that someone else’s ghost vote might override theirs—the motivation to participate weakens further. Nevertheless, this disengagement has consequences. When people don’t ask questions, those in power don’t feel the need to provide answers. When elections are treated as routine exercises, decision-making remains a closed-door affair, controlled by those who prefer to and have mastered the art of operating in silence. Hence, the upcoming municipal elections in your city may be an opportunity. An opportunity not just to vote but to demand clarity! To insist on manifestos that mean something. To engage with candidates as decision-makers, not just campaigners. To push for an electoral process that is as much about governance after winning as it is about winning.