Opinion | Why Are Our Cities Crumbling Under Just 30mm Of Rain?

Three UPSC aspirants, Nevin Dalvin, Tanya Soni, and Shreya Yadav, met a tragic end as they drowned in the flooded basement of Rau's Coaching Centre in Old Rajinder Nagar in Delhi. Just days before that, Nilesh Rai, returning to his paying guest accommodation in South Patel Nagar, was electrocuted while crossing a waterlogged lane. These tragedies are not confined to Delhi; in Maharashtra, torrential rains have claimed six lives, injured 12, and submerged countless homes. Our cities are paralysed by a mere 30mm of rain. The death of these young aspirants is a stark reminder of failure at multiple levels.

No Herculean Challenge

However, most of the administrative lapses that have led us here cannot be attributed to 'complexity'. For instance, the failure to properly maintain storm drains is a manageable challenge compared to other municipal responsibilities. Ensuring that libraries are appropriately situated and that classes are not conducted in the basements of buildings is a straightforward task. Likewise, the enforcement of mandatory fire safety equipment in every building is not a herculean undertaking.

These are basic, fundamental duties that should be executed with precision and diligence. When local governments falter in these areas, it is not due to the inherent complexity of their roles, but rather a blatant disregard for the safety and well-being of the community. Such failures are inexcusable and reflect a dire need for accountability and reform within local governance structures.

The Local Bureaucracy

Apart from the political leadership, one should also blame local bureaucracy. A lot has been written about corruption. But one should talk about bureaucratic inaction too. Inaction can be theoretically classified as a form of corruption, particularly within municipal bodies, when it involves the deliberate neglect of duties for personal or political reasons. This concept aligns with the broader definition of corruption provided by Rose-Ackerman (1999) and Klitgaard (1988), who emphasise the misuse of public power for private benefit. Municipal bodies are entrusted with the responsibility of delivering essential services like waste management, water supply, and infrastructure maintenance. When officials fail to enforce laws, overlook malpractices or neglect these crucial services, they engage in "passive corruption". This form of corruption is characterised by non-action that benefits a select few at the expense of the public good (Heidenheimer & Johnston, 2002).

Passive corruption within municipal bodies can manifest in various ways, including the failure to address illegal constructions, ignoring health and safety violations, or not maintaining public infrastructure. These actions, or lack thereof, disrupt the equitable distribution of resources and erode institutional integrity by allowing inefficiency and injustice to persist unchallenged (Jain, 2001). Both commission and omission can undermine governance and public trust (Treisman, 2000). In the context of municipal bodies, passive corruption not only hampers service delivery but also perpetuates a cycle of neglect and inefficiency that can have long-term detrimental effects on urban development and public welfare.

Corruption Goes Both Ways

Corruption is a two-way street, driven by both demand and supply. It often manifests as bribery, where officials use their power to enforce or overlook regulations in exchange for financial or other incentives from businesses or individuals seeking advantages. This mutual participation creates a self-reinforcing cycle, normalising corruption and compelling even honest actors to engage in such practices. Enough has been written about how there is a need for transparency and accountability, enforcing strict penalties for both givers and takers of bribes, encouraging whistleblowing, streamlining regulations, and promoting ethical practices within the private sector. However, this is not enough.

One way to deal with corruption, inaction and non-enforcement is to introduce punitive damages and the law of torts in India. Introducing punitive damages, fundamental to legal structures across many developed and developing nations alike, serves as a formidable deterrent against wrongdoings and a means to uphold justice and accountability. Levied over and above the actual damages incurred by victims, they are regularly imposed in cases of egregious negligence. Nations like the US, China, Australia, Canada, and the UK utilise this legal provision, reinforcing accountability. 

In stark contrast, India presents a sorry picture. The concept of punitive damages remains relatively alien to Indian jurisprudence, which has conventionally been inclined towards compensatory damages that are mostly symbolic. They are touted to cover the victim's actual loss. The absence of a comprehensive law of torts in India, coupled with an inconsistent pattern of ruling on damages alone, muddies the waters.

Punishment As A Deterrent

Such legislation would ensure that parties, including government entities, are held accountable for negligent actions. Establishing a comprehensive law of torts would amplify expectations of civic responsibility and foster greater trust in the legal mechanisms that safeguard society. Inconsistent rulings on punitive damages by Indian courts in major incidents, such as the Uphaar Cinema tragedy and the Morbi Bridge collapse, highlight a significant legal incongruity. The disparity in rulings, coupled with an absence of clear legislative guidance, creates a perplexing precedent and underscores the pressing need for a standardised law of torts in India. Such a law would streamline the legal landscape, providing a consistent approach to all civil wrongs, leading to better risk management and efficient use of resources. Its deterrent effect, discouraging negligence and rash public behaviour, fosters safer practices in various sectors. It also champions fairness, equalising power dynamics between individuals and influential entities.

Unfortunately, this law never made its way to India's legal system. Despite the British introduction of common law in the 18th century and the comprehensive codification of criminal, commercial, and procedural laws by 1882, tort law remained uncodified, standing as the only major field without a legal framework. The Fourth Law Commission in 1879 emphasised the importance of implementing tort law in India, leading Frederick Pollock to draft a Law of Torts for India in 1886. However, this draft never progressed to legislative action. Even after India gained independence, numerous reports continued to advocate for the establishment of tort law in the country. Irrespective of that, once a law of torts is introduced in India, it would be crucial to invest in the comprehensive training of legal practitioners, including both lawyers and judges, to handle tort cases competently. The reality is that courts generally exhibit a reluctance to award punitive damages. While the Supreme Court and a few High Courts have recently imposed punitive damages in certain cases, they have also reduced damages in others, demonstrating variability in applying this principle.

The local government and bureaucracy should be made accountable for their actions and inactions. Suspensions for a few days are not a big enough deterrent.

Empowering Local Authorities

However, this should also be supplemented by devolution of more power to the local governments. Mayors in cities around the world wield significantly greater authority, bear more responsibilities, and are held to higher standards of accountability than their counterparts in India. This model of governance should be adopted in India as well. Empowering mayors and local authorities with greater control over urban management, infrastructure development, and public services would lead to more efficient and responsive governance. With increased autonomy and accountability, local governments can address city-specific issues more effectively, ensuring that urban challenges are met with tailored solutions.

(Bibek Debroy is Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, and Aditya Sinha is OSD, Research, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author