1 hr ago
Supreme Court Questions Bengaluru Infrastructure Amid Premium FAR Case
The Supreme Court is examining a rule that lets property owners build more floors by paying a fee.
The court wants to know whether Bengaluru has enough roads, parking, water and electricity for this extra construction.
The judges said Gurugram shows what can happen when buildings increase without matching improvements in infrastructure.
They said Greater Noida was planned with the next 30 to 40 years in mind.
A citizens’ group argued that road width should not be the only important factor.
The government said the extra construction is limited and that parking and other rules still apply.
It also said the money collected will help improve civic infrastructure.
The court has asked Bengaluru authorities to respond within four weeks.
The Supreme Court questioned whether Bengaluru’s infrastructure can support additional construction allowed under the Premium FAR scheme.
The bench cited Gurugram’s infrastructure failures after natural calamities and contrasted them with Greater Noida’s long-term planning.
A petitioner argued that road width was becoming the main basis for granting Premium FAR despite pressure on parking, water and electricity.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said additional FAR is capped at 0.6 and developers must still meet parking and setback requirements.
The court issued notice to Bengaluru authorities, seeking their response within four weeks; Karnataka High Court had earlier upheld the scheme’s validity.
- Who
- The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant; Citizens Action Forum; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta; and Bengaluru authorities.
- What
- The court is reviewing concerns about Bengaluru’s Premium FAR scheme, which permits additional construction rights in exchange for prescribed premium charges.
- Where
- Bengaluru, with comparisons to Gurugram and Greater Noida; the proceedings are before the Supreme Court.
- When
- The court’s notice requires Bengaluru authorities to respond within four weeks; the article does not specify the hearing date.
- Why
- The case concerns whether additional construction under Premium FAR could worsen pressure on roads, parking, water, electricity and other civic infrastructure.
Infrastructure Concerns
Government Defense
Capacity for additional construction
Infrastructure Concerns
Citizens Action Forum argued that Bengaluru’s existing roads, parking, water and electricity systems may not support substantial additional construction.
Government Defense
The government said additional FAR is capped at 0.6 and that developers must satisfy existing parking and other regulatory requirements.
Basis for granting Premium FAR
Infrastructure Concerns
The petitioner argued that road width had effectively become the main criterion for allowing Premium FAR.
Government Defense
The government maintained that other requirements, including setbacks and parking, continue to apply.
Use of collected funds
Infrastructure Concerns
The concerns focus on whether added construction will be matched by adequate civic infrastructure.
Government Defense
The government said premium charges are placed in a dedicated fund for civic-infrastructure improvements.
Key facts
- Scheme
- Premium FAR allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights beyond ordinarily permitted FAR.
- Additional FAR limit
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the overall additional FAR remains capped at 0.6.
- Petitioner
- Citizens Action Forum challenged the scheme and raised infrastructure concerns.
- Government position
- Existing setback and parking requirements continue to apply, and collected money goes to a dedicated civic-infrastructure fund.
- Court action
- The Supreme Court issued notice and sought a response from Bengaluru authorities within four weeks.
- Earlier ruling
- The Karnataka High Court on June 15 upheld the scheme’s constitutional validity under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
- Construction regularisation
- The Solicitor General said the Premium FAR scheme would not regularise unauthorised construction covered by the Akrama-Sakrama scheme.
Quotes
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
Solicitor General representing the government before the Supreme Court
“There is no visible improvement or addition to the infrastructure, basic infrastructure of the township. It's not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied, or all these things.”
businesstoday.in
“It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement. It is completely different. You can also pass directions to this effect.”
businesstoday.in
Sources
Related news
Gurugram Flooding Blamed on Growth as MPs Promise 2047 Fix
Gurugram floods expose failures despite ₹1,400-crore drainage spending
High Court Halts Alleged Unauthorised Whitefield PG Construction
Greater Noida Approves Double-Decker Flyover to Ease Traffic
Deve Gowda Challenges Karnataka Plan to Allot BMICP Sites
Hyderabad's Unlimited FSI Boosts Development, Strains Civic Infrastructure
Supreme Court Seeks Former High Court Chief Justice Panel
Justice Datta Challenges Executive Control Over Judicial Appointments
India’s Election Commission Faces Dissent, Courts Hear Political Cases
Supreme Court Flags Delay in Rebel TMC MPs’ Disqualification
