Kerala minister, Thiruvananthapuram mayor spar over use of Smart City e-buses

The recent dispute between Kerala Minister K.B. Ganesh Kumar and Thiruvananthapuram Mayor V.V. Rajesh over the operational use of Smart City e-buses in the state capital offers a critical lens into the complexities of urban governance, inter-agency coordination, and federal relations in India. This seemingly localized spat underscores deeper structural challenges in implementing ambitious central government schemes at the grassroots level.

**Background Context: The Smart City Mission**

The Smart City Mission (SCM) was launched by the Government of India on June 25, 2015, with the ambitious goal of promoting cities that provide core infrastructure, a clean and sustainable environment, and a 'smart' solutions application. The mission envisions improving the quality of life for citizens, driving economic growth, and demonstrating 'lighthouse' projects to inspire other cities. It follows an 'area-based development' strategy, focusing on retrofitting, redevelopment, and greenfield development. A key feature of SCM is its funding mechanism, which is a 50:50 contribution from the Central and State governments, often channeled through a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) established for each Smart City. These SPVs are typically joint ventures between the State Government and the Urban Local Body (ULB), tasked with planning, appraising, approving, releasing funds, and implementing the Smart City projects.

**The Kerala Dispute: What Happened?**

The core of the conflict revolves around the use of e-buses procured under the Smart City Mission in Thiruvananthapuram. Mayor V.V. Rajesh accused the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) of contractual violations regarding the operation of these buses. The Mayor's contention likely stems from the perspective of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, which, as a partner in the Smart City SPV, expects adherence to agreed-upon operational protocols and optimal utilization of assets created with public funds. In response, Minister K.B. Ganesh Kumar emphasized the State's significant 60% funding stake in the Smart City project, suggesting that the Corporation could not afford to disregard the State government's directives or concerns. This highlights a classic tension between the local self-government's autonomy and the state government's financial contribution and oversight.

**Key Stakeholders Involved**

1. **Kerala Minister K.B. Ganesh Kumar:** Represents the State Government's interests, particularly in transport and urban development. His emphasis on the 60% state funding stake reflects the state's significant financial commitment and desire for control or influence over project implementation.

2. **Thiruvananthapuram Mayor V.V. Rajesh:** Represents the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the Urban Local Body (ULB). The Mayor's role is to ensure the efficient functioning of city services and adherence to contracts, safeguarding the city's interests and the proper utilization of Smart City assets.

3. **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC):** A state-owned public transport undertaking. KSRTC is the operational agency entrusted with running the e-buses. Accusations of 'contractual violation' point towards potential issues in the agreement between the Smart City SPV (which likely procured the buses) and KSRTC (which operates them).

4. **Thiruvananthapuram Smart City Ltd. (SPV):** This is the nodal agency responsible for the implementation of Smart City projects in Thiruvananthapuram. It acts as an interface between the central, state, and local governments, and various implementing agencies.

5. **Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India:** While not directly involved in this dispute, MoHUA is the overarching ministry responsible for the Smart City Mission, providing guidelines, central funding, and monitoring.

**Why This Matters for India**

This dispute is more than a local tiff; it's a microcosm of broader governance challenges in India. Firstly, it highlights **inter-agency coordination issues** – a persistent problem in multi-level governance where different government departments or bodies (municipal corporation, state transport, state government) often work in silos or have conflicting priorities. Secondly, it brings to the fore challenges in **fiscal federalism** and **centre-state-local body relations**. While the Smart City Mission is a central scheme, its implementation relies heavily on state and local governments. The funding pattern and the subsequent control over project assets often become points of contention. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which institutionalized Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and devolved powers to them (Articles 243P to 243ZG), aimed to empower cities. However, financial dependence and state oversight can often dilute this autonomy. The efficient management of public infrastructure, especially sustainable urban transport, is crucial for India's rapidly urbanizing landscape. Such disputes can delay project benefits, lead to underutilization of assets, and undermine public trust in government initiatives.

**Historical Context and Constitutional Provisions**

The evolution of urban governance in India has seen significant reforms, most notably the **74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992**. This landmark amendment mandated the establishment of Municipalities, granted them constitutional status, and specified their powers, functions, and responsibilities, including urban planning, regulation of land use, roads and bridges, public transport, and urban amenities. Schedule XII of the Constitution lists 18 functions that may be devolved to ULBs. However, the actual devolution of 'funds, functions, and functionaries' has varied significantly across states. Earlier urban development schemes like the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM, 2005-2014) also faced similar coordination and implementation challenges. The Smart City Mission was designed with a more focused approach and a dedicated SPV structure to overcome some of these hurdles, yet disputes like this indicate persistent issues.

**Future Implications**

Such conflicts can have several implications. They can lead to delays in project completion, cost overruns, and suboptimal utilization of assets like the e-buses, which are crucial for promoting sustainable urban mobility. For India's urban development agenda, it underscores the urgent need for clearer operational guidelines, robust inter-agency agreements, and effective dispute resolution mechanisms. It also calls for greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder, especially within the SPV framework. Ultimately, the success of ambitious national missions like SCM hinges on seamless coordination and cooperation among all tiers of government, ensuring that the spirit of cooperative federalism translates into tangible benefits for citizens.