5 Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court warned that urban systems like Gurugram's can collapse during rains when construction is allowed without matching investment in drainage, roads, and sewage infrastructure.
- The court contrasted Gurugram with Greater Noida, which it said was planned with the next 30-40 years in mind, during a hearing on Bengaluru's Premium FAR scheme.
- Bengaluru's Premium FAR scheme lets developers buy additional construction rights beyond normal Floor Area Ratio to encourage vertical growth and generate revenue for urban bodies.
- Petitioners argued that Bengaluru's parking, water, electricity, roads, and traffic are already stressed, and that road width has effectively become the main criterion for granting Premium FAR.
- State authorities defended the scheme by saying extra FAR is capped at 0.6, existing setback and parking rules apply, funds go to civic infrastructure, and it will not regularise illegal construction; the Supreme Court gave Bengaluru authorities four weeks to respond.
Gurugram Collapses in Rains While Greater Noida Planned for 30–40 Years: Supreme Court’s Urban Infrastructure Warning
On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, the Supreme Court drew a sharp contrast between two urban centres to make a larger point about planning. It observed that Gurugram’s urban system collapses during rains because adequate investment was not made in infrastructure such as drainage and sewage systems. At the same time, the court pointed to Greater Noida as an example of a city planned with the next 30 to 40 years in mind. The remarks came during a hearing on Bengaluru’s Premium Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, scheme. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice on a plea filed by the Citizens Action Forum.
The case has wide implications for how Indian cities manage construction and infrastructure. At its heart is a legal dispute over whether Bengaluru can allow developers to buy additional construction rights without first ensuring that roads, water, parking, electricity and other basic services can handle the increased burden. The Supreme Court’s observations suggest that it may be looking beyond the narrow legal challenge to examine the practical consequences of urban development policies.
What is the Premium FAR scheme?
The Premium FAR scheme allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights beyond the ordinarily permissible Floor Area Ratio by paying prescribed premium charges. FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the plot on which it stands. For example, if a plot is 1,000 square metres and the FAR is 2, the total floor area across all storeys cannot exceed 2,000 square metres.
The stated objective of the Premium FAR scheme is to facilitate vertical development and generate revenue for urban local bodies. Instead of spreading cities outward, the logic goes, builders can go upward. However, the legal challenge raises a critical question: can Bengaluru’s existing infrastructure support that additional construction?
The case reached the Supreme Court after the Karnataka High Court, in a June 15 judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the Premium FAR scheme. The high court dismissed petitions arguing that the scheme violated property rights and reduced the value of Transferable Development Rights, or TDRs. The Premium FAR scheme was introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The high court held that it did not violate Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution. These Articles deal respectively with equality before law, protection of life and personal liberty, and the right to property.
Supreme Court’s infrastructure warning
Chief Justice Surya Kant raised concerns about what additional construction does to a city when basic infrastructure does not keep pace. He said there was no visible improvement or addition to the basic infrastructure of the township, such as roads, sewer lines and bus flyovers, despite the additional construction capacity.
Then he made the comparison with Gurugram.
“We have seen in Gurugram how this system collapses if any natural calamity comes. Because, without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple storeys,” the Chief Justice said.
He said the situation was different in Greater Noida because that city had been planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind. The contrast was not incidental. It was a direct warning that allowing more construction without corresponding investment in drainage, roads and other public systems can lead to visible failures during heavy rain or other natural events.
The bench also clarified that the additional FAR available under the scheme should not be used to regularise illegal construction. This was an important early signal from the court, even as it allowed the proceedings to continue.
The petitioner’s concerns
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the Citizens Action Forum, argued that road width had effectively become the main criterion for granting Premium FAR. He said this was happening despite existing pressure on Bengaluru’s parking, water, electricity and other infrastructure.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also referred to Bengaluru’s traffic problems. He said the city has a “traffic nightmare” and that this was a serious concern raised by the petitioner. The court’s willingness to engage with these practical issues signals that the case may not be decided solely on technical legal grounds.
The government’s response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state authorities, defended the scheme. He said the overall additional FAR remained capped at 0.6. He also said existing setback and parking requirements continued to apply. Developers could not simply purchase additional FAR without meeting parking and other regulatory requirements.
Mehta said the money collected under the scheme would go into a dedicated fund for civic infrastructure. That assurance was meant to address the concern that the scheme would enrich developers while leaving public systems strained. He argued that urban space was limited and vertical growth was the way forward, adding that cities were increasingly moving towards vertical development.
The regularisation question
A key issue before the bench was whether the Premium FAR scheme could be used to regularise unauthorised construction. Sondhi questioned how the new scheme differed from the earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme, under which unauthorised constructions were legalised. He told the court that a provision in the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act allowed Premium FAR to be used for regularising existing illegal constructions.
Mehta rejected that contention and gave a clear assurance. “It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement. It is completely different. You can also pass directions to this effect,” Mehta said. He said unauthorised construction covered by the Akrama-Sakrama scheme would not be regularised under the Premium FAR scheme.
Legal backdrop: property rights and TDRs
The case also involves a deeper debate about property rights and the value of Transferable Development Rights. The NGO had argued that Premium FAR allowed developers to purchase additional building rights at rates significantly below the market cost of TDRs. This, the Citizens Action Forum contended, undermined TDRs secured by landowners as compensation for land.
The Karnataka High Court rejected that argument. It held that a state policy resulting in fluctuations in property values would not by itself make the policy violative of Article 300A. The court also held that the scheme did not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
What happens next
The Supreme Court has asked Bengaluru authorities to file their response to the plea within four weeks. That means the legal contest over the Premium FAR scheme will continue, with the court now examining both the legality of the scheme and its practical impact on urban infrastructure.
The case could set an important precedent for how Indian cities balance vertical growth with roads, water, drainage, parking and other basic services. The contrast the court drew between Gurugram and Greater Noida signals that future urban development may face closer scrutiny if infrastructure planning is treated as an afterthought. For residents of Bengaluru, the outcome could determine whether the city’s already stressed systems receive the investment they need before more construction is approved.
No comments:
Post a Comment