GS2Indian Polity & Constitution·06 Sept 2026·4 min read

Andhra Pradesh's Direct Mayor Elections: A Quiet Reshaping of Urban Democracy

On Saturday, the Andhra Pradesh government issued statutory rules and orders to conduct ordinary elections for urban local bodies, introducing direct elections for mayors, chairpersons, and ward members. The move replaces the long‑standing indirect election system and signals a broader push for electoral reforms across Indian states. Under the new rules, voters on municipal rolls will directly elect mayors, a change affecting over 1.2 million urban voters in the state.

•Andhra Pradesh has become the latest State to dismantle the indirect election of urban local body heads.
•The government has notified statutory rules for conducting ordinary elections to urban local bodies (ULBs) under amended municipal laws — Mayors of municipal corporations and chairpersons of municipalities and nagar panchayats will now be elected directly by voters.
•The rules, which prescribe the full procedural machinery from notification to declaration of results, also retain indirect elections for one Deputy Mayor and one vice-chairperson post each, replacing the earlier provision for two such posts.

Andhra Pradesh has become the latest State to dismantle the indirect election of urban local body heads. The government has notified statutory rules for conducting ordinary elections to urban local bodies (ULBs) under amended municipal laws — Mayors of municipal corporations and chairpersons of municipalities and nagar panchayats will now be elected directly by voters. The rules, which prescribe the full procedural machinery from notification to declaration of results, also retain indirect elections for one Deputy Mayor and one vice-chairperson post each, replacing the earlier provision for two such posts.

What the Rules Actually Do

The notification is a procedural document with substantive consequences. It lays down the complete electoral chain — nominations, scrutiny, symbol allotment, postal ballots, use of electronic voting machines or paper ballots, NOTA, challenged and tendered votes, counting, recounting, and submission of expenditure accounts. The directly elected Mayor or chairperson will hold a five-year term and become a member of the corporation or municipality by virtue of office.

Key operational specifics embedded in the rules:

▸Mayors and chairpersons now derive their mandate from the same electoral roll as ward members — not from a college of elected representatives
▸Deputy Mayors and vice-chairpersons continue to be elected indirectly, but the number of such posts has been halved — from two to one per ULB
▸Election expenditure account submission by candidates is a mandatory procedural step under the new framework
▸The Mayor becomes an ex-officio member of the corporation, altering the internal power arithmetic of the body

The Federal Question: Who Gets to Decide?

Direct election of urban body heads is a State legislative choice — the Constitution of India places local government squarely under State jurisdiction through the Seventh Schedule's municipal条目 (Entries 5 and 6 of List II). However, the framework is shaped by Article 243U and Article 243ZA, read with the 74th Constitutional Amendment (1992), which mandate State-level commissions to periodically delimit wards and determine the manner of mayoral elections.

Article 243U permits States to choose between direct and indirect election for the chairperson of a municipality — provided the choice is made through State law and applies uniformly. By exercising this option for direct elections, Andhra Pradesh joins States like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, while others such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala continue with the indirect model.

The Electoral Architecture Behind It

The rules borrow heavily from the framework the Election Commission of India (ECI) administers for Assembly and parliamentary elections — symbol allotment, NOTA, postal ballots, EVMs. This procedural commonality is deliberate. The ECI has historically supervised State election commissioner-conducted local body polls, and the rules replicate the ECI's Model Code of Conduct template to ensure uniformity.

The Election Commission of India's own powers under Article 324 are plenary — they extend to "the superintendence, direction and control of elections" to Parliament, State legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. The ECI's supervisory reach over local body elections is more circumscribed, though Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and corresponding provisions in the Municipal Corporations Act vest superintendence in the State Election Commission.

:::callout Did You Know?

Under the old indirect system in Andhra Pradesh, Mayors were often elected through cross-voting by corporators — frequently defeating the party that had won a majority of wards. Direct elections force voters, not elected representatives, to choose the city's leader, fundamentally altering the mayoral accountability chain.

:::

What Changes Now

Direct elections shift accountability upward — from the party caucus in the council chamber to the voter at the ballot box. A Mayor elected by 15 lakh residents cannot be replaced by a no-confidence motion from 80 corporators without facing the political cost. This structurally strengthens the mayoral office vis-à-vis the municipal bureaucracy and the council, and aligns the ULB leadership with the political mandate that elected the ruling party in the State.

The reduction from two Deputy Mayors/vice-chairpersons to one is a less-noticed but consequential change. It compresses the second-tier leadership structure and limits the patronage distribution channels that local parties have historically used through these posts.

Andhra Pradesh's reform is part of a broader drift. Since 2018, a growing number of States have moved to direct mayoral elections — Chhattisgarh in 2022, Madhya Pradesh in 2023, and now Andhra Pradesh. The trend points to a slow but steady reconvergence of local and State-level electoral mandates, with implications for urban governance accountability that will unfold over the coming election cycles.