Chandigarh advisory council’s tenure extended by 6 months

In its two-year tenure, the Chandigarh advisory council proved largely inconsequential in the delivery of any crucial decisions or resolving long-standing issues of the city

UT administrator VP Singh Badnore has extended the tenure of the administrator’s advisory council by another six months.

Critics have also voiced concern over the irregular nature of meetings and it “not being a truly people’s representative institution” (HT PHOTO)

The council’s two-year tenure, which was to end on August 5, has been extended to March 31, 2022. The present 60-member council was constituted in August 2019.

The apex advisory body of the administration last met in February this year. In its two-year tenure, the council proved inconsequential in the delivery of any crucial decisions or resolving long-standing issues of the city.

Headed by the UT administrator, it is responsible for advising the administration on development issues and policy matters affecting the city, and gives a platform to residents to air their views on a range of issues concerning the city.

In addition to all senior UT officials, it includes the current and former members of Parliament, mayor, residents’ and business association representatives, and other prominent citizens. It also has 10 standing committees, which are subject-matter-related groups headed by a chairman.

Panel’s working under scrutiny

The working and relevance of the council has come under increasing scanner in the last couple of years.

Its last meeting, which was two hours long, saw UT officials making presentations on the administration’s achievements. The Chandigarh Police gave a presentation for around 15 minutes, which was followed by a 45-minute presentation by UT chief engineer CB Ojha.

Thereon, only some council members, mostly political leaders and bureaucrats, got an opportunity to speak. As a result, representatives of the market, residents’ and industry associations sought changes in the format of the meeting.

Suggestions were also made for action-taken reports to be tabled before the council members, to apprise them of the measures taken by the administration on the previously-issued recommendations by the council and its sub-committees.

Critics have also voiced concern over the irregular nature of meetings and it “not being a truly people’s representative institution”. “While most of the time, there are no discussions in the council, the members are not even informed of the results of their deliberations, if any,” said a member who didn’t want to be quoted.

Sub-committees ineffective

The current and former members have contended that even the sub-committees have no relevance in the scheme of city’s governance. Though considered as expert committees, set up to threadbare examine specific subjects, the committees lack adequate subject-matter experts. Their decisions and recommendations are now not even compiled as “minutes of meeting” but only as “issues discussed”.

In recent times, the committees have even contradicted each other’s findings and recommendations.

For instance, on the issue of allowing construction of new nursing homes in residential areas, the panel on health and urban planning differed, reaching different conclusions.

The standing committee on urban infrastructure and planning for the city, in a meeting held in July last year, rejected the proposal. Their contention was that these were purely commercial activities and offered expensive health care facilities. All its members opposed the move.

But later, the matter was referred to another panel, committee on health, which, in its meeting held in March this year, unanimously recommended the opening of nursing homes in residential areas, but with certain conditions.