GS2Governance & Social Justice·22 Jul 2026·4 min read

The CURE Bill: Words vs Will

On Tuesday, Minister of State Ramdas Athawale disclosed Tamil Nadu’s 38 deaths from septic‑tank cleaning in response to a parliamentary query, while civil‑society groups highlighted the Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill’s scant mention of accountability. The revelations underscore growing concerns over how manage public‑service contracts and the limited citizen participation embedded in new governance legislation. The bill references ‘accountability’ only once across 271 pages, even as it lists 780 mentions of ‘Commissioner’, and Tamil Nadu’s death toll ranks third nationally over five years

•Hyderabad’s CURE Bill and Tamil Nadu’s Septic Deaths: Governance Gaps Exposed

Hyderabad’s CURE Bill and Tamil Nadu’s Septic Deaths: Governance Gaps Exposed

The Core Urban Region (Integrated Governance) Bill, 2026 (CURE Bill) was criticised on Tuesday for mentioning “consultation” only seven times and “accountability” once, while the word “government” appears 475 times. In a separate parliamentary exchange, Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Ramdas Athawale disclosed that Tamil Nadu recorded 38 deaths in septic‑tank cleaning over the past five years, the third‑highest tally in the country. Both episodes lay bare the disparity between legislative rhetoric and on‑the‑ground outcomes in India’s urban governance and occupational safety regimes.

The CURE Bill, a 271‑page statute intended to streamline metropolitan administration, was benchmarked against the 1955 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (GHMC Act) and the 2024 Greater Bengaluru Governance Act (GBG Act). Janaagraha’s study team gave the CURE Bill a marginal 5 % improvement over the GHMC Act but a 10 % deficit relative to the GBG Act, signalling limited progress in participatory governance.

▸“Consultation” appears seven times; “participation” five times; “accountability” only once.
▸“Government” is mentioned 475 times; “commissioner” 780 times.
▸The bill scored 5 % higher than the GHMC Act but 10 % lower than the GBG Act.
▸Total length: 271 pages.
▸Janaagraha’s ranking criteria: city planning, elected‑representative power, transparency, accountability, citizen participation, and delivery capacity.

Constitutional Mandate for Participation

India’s Constitution obliges urban local bodies to involve citizens through the 74th Constitutional Amendment and the principle of “participatory democracy”. Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which courts have interpreted to include safe working conditions. Moreover, Article 311 protects civil servants from arbitrary dismissal, ensuring continuity in policy implementation.

▸Article 21: Right to life extends to health and safety in public services.
▸Article 311: Safeguards civil‑service tenure, limiting abrupt policy shifts.
▸74th Constitutional Amendment: Mandates ward committees and local‑area planning boards.
▸The CURE Bill’s limited “participation” language falls short of these constitutional expectations.
▸Municipalities are required to publish annual performance reports under the Right to Information Act 2005.

Accountability Mechanisms: From RTI to Audits

Effective oversight hinges on transparent information flows. The Right to Information Act 2005 empowers citizens to request data on municipal contracts, staffing, and health‑safety audits. Independent bodies such as the State Finance Commissions and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) can audit expenditures, yet the CURE Bill allocates scant authority for such scrutiny.

▸RTI requests must be answered within 30 days, with a fee ceiling of ₹ 5.
▸CAG audits municipal accounts annually, reporting to Parliament and State Legislatures.
▸State Finance Commissions review fiscal devolution to urban bodies every five years.
▸The CURE Bill designates a “Commissioner” but does not specify an independent audit clause.
▸Lack of a statutory grievance redressal mechanism weakens citizen recourse.

Did You Know? The first municipal corporation in India, the Madras Corporation, was established in 1688, predating the British Parliament’s municipal reforms by more than a century.

Septic Tank Fatalities: A Neglected Occupational Hazard

The Ministry of State for Social Justice and Empowerment’s response to MP D. Ravikumar’s query revealed that 332 workers died nationwide while cleaning septic tanks between 2021‑2026. Tamil Nadu’s 38 deaths rank it third after Maharashtra (58) and Haryana (47). The tragedy underscores the absence of enforceable safety standards for informal sanitation workers.

▸Total deaths (India, 2021‑2026): 332.
▸Maharashtra: 58 deaths; Haryana: 47 deaths; Tamil Nadu: 38 deaths.
▸No single agency has statutory authority to certify septic‑tank cleaning contractors.
▸Workers often lack personal protective equipment (PPE) and formal training.
▸State‑level grievance portals exist but are rarely accessed by informal laborers.

Linking Urban Governance to Public Health

Urban sanitation policies, such as the Swachh Bharat Mission, aim to eliminate open defecation and improve waste management, yet the safety of manual cleaning crews remains peripheral. Integrating occupational health standards into municipal contracts could reduce fatalities and align with the broader public‑health agenda of the National Urban Mission.

▸Swachh Bharat Mission targets 100 % coverage of solid‑waste management by 2025.
▸National Urban Mission (NUm) allocates funds for capacity‑building of urban local bodies.
▸Incorporating safety clauses in municipal tenders can trigger compliance monitoring.
▸A joint task force of health, labour, and urban ministries could draft a model safety protocol.
▸Reducing septic‑tank deaths would improve the overall life‑expectancy metric under Article 21.

The juxtaposition of a bill heavy on bureaucratic terminology and a preventable loss of life in sanitation work illustrates a systemic gap: policy language alone cannot guarantee citizen welfare without robust implementation, monitoring, and enforcement frameworks.