In a deeply troubling development, the Punjab Cabinet has approved a decision that effectively sidelines democratic leadership in favour of bureaucratic control, marking what can only be described as a murder of democracy. By transferring the powers of Chairperson of all town planning and development authorities from the Chief Minister to the Chief Secretary, the government has stripped elected leadership of a vital policy domain and handed it to an unelected official
Under this decision, the Chief Secretary will now preside over major urban development bodies including GMADA, GLADA, PDA (Patiala), BDA (Bathinda), JDA (Jalandhar), ADA (Amritsar), and others. These authorities, responsible for approving and implementing development projects across Punjab, will now be steered by a bureaucrat answerable not to the people, but to administrative hierarchies. This move, which is being deceptively presented as a “visionary” and “bold reform,” reeks of centralised authoritarianism under the guise of administrative efficiency.
The justification provided by Finance Minister Harpal Singh Cheema—citing the Chief Minister’s busy schedule—only raises further alarms. If the Chief Minister is too occupied to perform his statutory role, should the answer be the erosion of constitutional responsibility and elected accountability? Delegating such critical functions to the Chief Secretary is not a reform—it is a regressive step that echoes autocratic governance. In democratic setups, development decisions must remain in the hands of the people’s representatives, not behind the closed doors of bureaucratic chambers.
The government’s narrative that this brings “uniformity” and streamlines decision-making is misleading. In reality, this restructuring bypasses local voices and reduces the role of public representatives to spectators. Even though it is claimed that the Chief Minister will approve projects in the Cabinet, in practice, this will become a mere formality, further consolidating bureaucratic power at the expense of democratic transparency and public participation.
The argument that other states such as Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh have similar models is also flawed. Punjab has its own unique political and cultural framework. Blindly copying governance models without context is a recipe for disenfranchising local populations. Punjab’s people did not vote for bureaucrats—they voted for leaders who would represent their will and protect their interests.
This decision must be opposed vigorously. It is not just an administrative change—it is a blatant centralization of power that undermines democratic norms. Handing control of Punjab’s land, resources, and urban planning to an unelected official is not progress; it is a betrayal of the electorate’s trust and a dangerous precedent for future governance.