Delhi Congress chief Devender Yadav alleged that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has taken a regressive decision by making the approval of the area councillor mandatory for Residents' Welfare Associations (RWAs) seeking to maintain municipal parks. He argued that the requirement threatens established arrangements under which community groups undertake upkeep of public open spaces and would discourage voluntary efforts. The criticism centred on the impact of additional bureaucratic layers on citizen-led maintenance. Yadav urged the civic body to encourage Residents' Welfare Associations rather than impose extra controls, recalling that when the Congress led the city RWAs received support under the Bhagidari Scheme to promote citizen participation in civic management and neighbourhood cleanliness. He stated that the scheme had enabled sustained community engagement with municipal services and assisted local upkeep. The Congress contended that the Municipal Corporation now requires proposals for financial assistance or formal partnerships to be endorsed by the area councillor or the Mayor, a mandate that would dampen enthusiasm for public service. Yadav highlighted that many councillors struggle to fulfil assigned responsibilities for ward upkeep and development, so adding gatekeeping duties would impede completion of existing tasks. He warned that applications submitted by Residents' Welfare Associations to adopt and maintain parks typically require concurrence from the councillor or the Mayor, a process that would delay projects and create opportunities for corruption. He noted that under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement RWAs receive standard maintenance charges, such as Rs 13,500 per acre per month, and free compost from civic waste centres. Yadav alleged that councillor involvement would enable imposition of conditions that would thwart social work and create unnecessary bottlenecks, and he urged the civic authority to simplify procedures so community organisations can sustain maintenance activities without administrative hurdles. The criticism framed the MCD move as a step away from prior efforts to involve residents in park upkeep and from policies that supported volunteer contribution.