The Punjab government unveiled the Punjab Local Government Act 2025, a comprehensive reform package that purports to decentralise governance after years of delay and uneven political resolve. The Act abolishes previous local government structures and introduces a new model of administration, but its reception has been far from unanimous. Although the legislation emphasises compliance with Article 140-A of the Constitution, which envisions political, administrative, and financial devolution to local levels, many observers contend that the text of the Act implies otherwise. Instead of transferring actual authority to the people, the latest Act consolidates control within the provincial bureaucracy.

The primary focus of the reform is to completely restructure local government structures. The former District Councils have been replaced by district authorities, which will handle devolved departments such as health, education, social welfare, and tourism. These authorities will be led by Deputy Commissioners (DCs), rather than elected representatives. These DCs will chair the Executive Board, which includes department heads, a district attorney, and other members appointed by the chair. Proponents of the Act assert that this design creates oversight and, ultimately, greater value in a system that has been dominated by politics, favouritism, incompetence, and lack of service. The job of the Deputy Commissioner is to coordinate and work across departments, focusing mainly on development and emergencies. The government now prioritises accountability in government by using modern ways to monitor actions and allowing people to participate in hearings and track the online progress of service or action.

However, the guarantees were not enough to stop the increasing criticism. Members of the opposition and civil society actors claim that the Act undermines democratic representation and removes district autonomy, while increasing the power of the Chief Minister through the District Commissioners (DCs). The opponents cite that this is an extension of the centralised power of prior military leaders. A lawmaker opposed the idea of ceding power to appointed authorities rather than elected officials, calling the bill a variant of civil martial law.

This criticism becomes more incisive when one examines the various........

© Courting The Law