Mumbai civic elections: Who really built the mighty Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)?

BMC

Mumbai’s civic elections are often framed as a battle for the future of India’s financial capital. But to truly understand the immense power and complexity of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), a body with a budget larger than some Indian states, one must look back more than 250 years.

Its evolution, from a handful of East India Company clerks struggling to clean filthy streets to the sprawling administrative giant of today, is a story of colonial experiment, public health shocks and a city’s relentless, unfinished pursuit of order, as detailed in a report by The Indian Express.

Long before the concept of a ‘municipality’ took root, the city’s civic fate in the mid-18th century lay with the President and Council of the East India Company. Junior staff handled scavenging and repairs with scant authority, leading to chronic complaints about filth. In 1752, the Company formalised a response, appointing a senior Council member to oversee sanitation and imposing proportional housing taxes — Mumbai’s earliest civic levy.

A more structured framework emerged in 1792 under a British Parliament statute, which allowed the appointment of Justices of Peace in Bombay. These figures, akin to proto-corporators, could levy property taxes and order repairs, but the merger of civic and policing duties bred confusion.

The first recognisable municipal institution, the Board of Conservancy, was established in 1845. This seven-member body managed a consolidated Municipal Fund for sanitation and public works but was hamstrung by a lack of penal powers, financial shortfalls and clashes with the Justices.

By the 1850s, epidemics exposed the Board’s inadequacies. It was dissolved in 1858 and replaced by a triumvirate of Municipal Commissioners. While their divided authority slowed decisions, their tenure yielded a landmark achievement: the development of Vihar Lake and Bombay’s first piped water supply, a major public health advance.

The pivotal shift arrived on July 1, 1865 — coinciding with a financial crash known as Black Monday — with the creation of Bombay’s first statutory Municipal Corporation. As reported by The Indian Express, fewer than a hundred nominated Justices of the Peace, drawn from elites, were converted into a corporate body with powers to tax and borrow.

Executive control was vested in a single Municipal Commissioner, a centralisation that later triggered a financial crisis in 1871 and fuelled demands for public representation.

Pressure for accountability culminated in the Municipal Bill of 1872, which introduced Bombay’s first civic franchise. Rate-payers meeting a tax threshold could elect half of a 64-member Corporation. An elected Town Council was created to supervise finances. Subsequent reforms expanded this framework, influenced by Lord Ripon’s advocacy for local self-government.

The architectural bedrock of the modern BMC was laid with Act III of 1888. It established the tripartite structure — the Municipal Corporation, the Standing Committee and the Municipal Commissioner — that defines civic governance today, assigning key responsibilities from water and drainage to education and fire services.

The 20th century saw the franchise widen and the last vestiges of the Justice of Peace system abolished in 1922. The first municipal elections under adult franchise were held in 1948.

The city’s physical and administrative scale transformed with the creation of ‘Greater Bombay’ in the 1950s, absorbing surrounding talukas. Municipal limits expanded to roughly 438 square kilometres, governing a resident population exceeding 1.25 crore and a daily influx of commuters.

Today, the BMC’s remit is vast, managing everything from water systems and hospitals to disaster response and public health. The number of electoral wards has grown from 140 in the 1960s to 227, mirroring the city’s explosive growth.

Against this backdrop of colossal scale, the idea of splitting the BMC has resurfaced repeatedly over fifty years, The Indian Express notes. Proponents argue that a single corporation cannot equitably serve the diverse needs of the island city, eastern suburbs and western suburbs; that centralisation stifles decision-making; and that decentralisation would improve transparency.

Opponents counter that division would fracture Mumbai’s formidable financial clout, Balkanise administration and weaken citywide coordination. The issue remains politically charged, as control over the unified BMC has long been central to the power calculus of major political parties.