Madam Ashwini Bhide: “Who Is Accountable? The System That Fines But Never Answers”
6th April, 2026
By Ronnie Rodrigues
Mumbai: Madam Ashwini Bhide, you now hold one of the most powerful civic positions in Asia—an office that has long shaped not just the city’s growth, but also a system that quietly profits from its own permissions.
This institution has, over decades, built a structure where approvals and violations coexist—one enabling the other in a continuous cycle.
Today, Mumbai watches you closely—not because the system is unknown, but because there is a rare belief that someone might finally acknowledge it.
There is a growing sense that this moment could mark a shift from silent acceptance to visible accountability.
Step into the city—not through reports or meetings—but on the ground, early in the morning when reality is most unfiltered.
Observe firsthand how everyday life exposes the gap between planning and lived experience.
In areas like Tilak Nagar, Ghatkopar, Dadar, and Goregaon, residents exit newly redeveloped towers only to face a basic problem—no legal place to park.
Despite owning homes and vehicles lawfully, they are pushed into inevitable violations due to lack of infrastructure.
They circle their neighborhoods repeatedly until compulsion replaces choice, eventually parking outside their own buildings.
Soon after, enforcement arrives with precision, issuing fines as part of a routine that repeats daily.
Now widen the lens.
Look beyond individuals to the structures themselves.
These buildings, symbols of urban progress, house hundreds in conditions that resemble vertical congestion rather than planned living.
Inside, #parking is insufficient; outside, roads are already overburdened by vehicles and encroachments.
Shift focus again—to documentation.
Across Mumbai, numerous buildings remain without #OccupancyCertificates.
These are not hidden irregularities but developments approved, constructed, sold, and occupied under full institutional awareness.
Yet, residents who have fulfilled every financial obligation are told their compliance remains incomplete.
Instead of accountability, they are asked to pay further to regularise what was already permitted.
At this stage, inefficiency gives way to a structured sequence:
Permission → Construction → Partial compliance → Regularisation → Payment
A loop that sustains itself.
What is striking is not just the existence of this cycle, but how deeply it has been accepted as normal governance.
It reflects a system that functions seamlessly, yet produces inequitable outcomes.
The civic body enables density without ensuring livability.
Enforcement agencies act on consequences without questioning their origins.
Responsibilities remain divided enough to avoid blame, yet aligned enough to ensure revenue flows.
In the middle stands the most predictable participant—the middle-class citizen.
Documented, traceable, compliant.
Easily penalised, yet least equipped to resist.
Meanwhile, contradictions remain visible.
Police vehicles occupy public roads—the same spaces where citizens are fined.
Police stations themselves lack parking infrastructure, relying on public roads just like residents.
Yet enforcement rarely turns inward.
Encroachments persist openly, narrowing roads while remaining officially unacknowledged.
#Illegalhoardings on light poles and across entire streets—used by politicians as well as private individuals—continue to dominate public spaces without consequence.
The law does not collapse here—it selectively applies itself.
The pattern becomes clear.
What cannot be supported is approved, what should be prevented is ignored, and the burden of consequences is shifted onto citizens.
Parking fines become routine, regularisation becomes policy, and compliance becomes transactional.
Gradually, governance transforms into a system of revenue collection.
And with that, frustration evolves into awareness.
Citizens now recognise that the same system that sanctioned their homes questions their legality.
They see that the constraints imposed on them are later used to penalise them.
They understand that accountability rarely moves upward—it settles downward with precision.
And this recognition changes the equation.
Inconvenience can be tolerated.
Chaos can be managed.
But sustained, predictable, and institutionalised injustice erodes trust.
It weakens belief in the very system meant to serve.
Mumbai’s middle class has endured decades of inefficiency with resilience and compliance.
But resilience has limits, and compliance cannot survive without fairness.
The city does not need more committees, policy notes, or enforcement announcements.
It requires something far more fundamental—a break in the pattern.
A clear shift where consequences are not punished while causes remain protected.
A system where accountability moves upward to those who approved, overlooked, and designed these structures.
Because the issue is no longer just planning or enforcement—it is misalignment.
Every part of the system performs its role, yet the outcome remains unjust.
And that is more dangerous than inefficiency.
Inefficiency invites correction—but a system that works against its citizens invites resistance.
You now stand at a point where this trajectory can still change.
You can either manage the symptoms or confront the structure itself.
You can allow the system to continue unchallenged—or make it visible enough to question.
Because if change does not come from within, it will eventually come from outside.
And when it does, it will not follow procedure.
It will not be predictable.
It will test the system’s limits—
and it will be far harder to contain.