CURE Bill faces fresh opposition

metro india news I hyderabad

The Telangana Urban Struggles Forum (TUSF), a coalition under the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), has urged the Telangana government to reconsider the proposed Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026, after holding fresh consultations with elected representatives and civil society organisations. The forum has also demanded that the proposed CURE Apex Governance Council and the CURE Executive Committee be removed from the Bill, alleging that they are unconstitutional, over-centralised bodies that weaken democratic local governance.

The forum submitted a detailed representation to Special Chief Secretary, Metropolitan Area and Urban Development (MA&UD), Jayesh Ranjan, on Friday. The memorandum was prepared after a day-long consultation held in Hyderabad on July 22, where representatives of workers' unions, community organisations, urban practitioners, experts and social activists reviewed the Bill section by section and compiled their objections and suggestions.

According to the forum, the proposed CURE Apex Governance Council would have sweeping powers to determine the overall agenda, policy direction and strategic priorities of the Core Urban Region despite not including a single elected representative from municipal corporations. The CURE Executive Committee would implement the council's decisions. The forum argued that these bodies undermine the decentralised municipal governance framework guaranteed under Part IX-A of the Constitution and weaken the authority of elected local bodies.

The representation also raised concerns over the reduced role of ward committees. It stated that several powers available under the existing GHMC Act, including monitoring civic services, supervising municipal works, participating in welfare schemes and preparing ward development plans, have either been removed or substantially diluted. 

According to the forum, these changes erode local self-governance and reduce public participation in urban administration. The forum further criticised the Bill for not containing a Statement of Objects and Reasons explaining why a new governance framework is required or why existing institutions such as municipal corporations, HMDA, HMWSSB and HYDRAA are inadequate.

It also alleged that the Bill delegates extensive powers to the executive without clearly defining the composition, functions and accountability of several new authorities and committees proposed under the legislation. Another major concern is the absence of a statutory public grievance redressal mechanism. 

While welcoming technology-driven governance, the forum said the proposed digital governance framework lacks safeguards relating to transparency, data accuracy, privacy, correction of errors and protection against exclusion of citizens without digital access. It recommended stronger legal safeguards and retention of physical alternatives for essential civic services. The representation also highlighted what it described as drafting flaws.

It cited a provision requiring payment of "eight annas" to inspect municipal records despite the currency system being abolished decades ago, saying it reflected inadequate legal scrutiny. It also raised concerns over provisions relating to management and control of animals, stating that they do not adequately align with existing animal welfare laws.

The forum submitted 47 clause-by-clause recommendations, including mandatory public consultation before framing rules, greater representation for workers' unions and civil society organisations in newly proposed authorities, restoration of ward committee powers, harmonisation with existing laws, stronger transparency measures, annual public reporting by governance bodies and a legally enforceable grievance redressal system.

The recommendations also seek stronger safeguards for digital governance, better protection for gig workers, street vendors and informal workers, enhanced biodiversity reporting, improved public education and greater accountability of the new governance institutions proposed under the Bill.

Representatives of the forum had also met the Special Chief Secretary and requested the government to extend the deadline for submitting public suggestions while presenting their key concerns. The forum expressed hope that the government would carefully examine its recommendations and fulfil the assurance given during the meeting by holding an in-person consultation with stakeholders and explaining the reasons for accepting or rejecting each public suggestion before finalising the legislation.