Supreme Court cites Gurugram while hearing Premium FAR plea
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cited Gurugram as an example of civic systems collapsing during heavy rains while hearing a plea against a Karnataka High Court order upholding the state's Premium FAR scheme. CJI Kant said Greater Noida was planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind. The bench issued notice on the Citizens Action Forum plea, gave Bengaluru authorities four weeks to respond, and clarified additional FAR cannot regularise illegal construction.
Source
Hindustan Times — India · read the original report ↗
Desk check · compared with the source
What the desk checked (4)
- Supreme Court cited Gurugram as an example of civic systems collapsing in heavy rains and called Greater Noida planned for the next 30-40 years. — Attributed to the bench, with CJI Kant quoted; sourced to PTI in the article.
- Notice was issued on the Citizens Action Forum plea and Bengaluru authorities were given four weeks to respond. — Attributed to the court proceedings as reported in the source.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said additional FAR is capped at 0.6 and collections go to a dedicated civic infrastructure fund. — Figure appears in source, attributed to Mehta in open court.
- Karnataka High Court on June 15 upheld the Premium FAR scheme under Section 18-B of the KTCP Act, 1961. — Date and legal provision appear in the source; year of the order not specified.
Analysts’ view opinion
The Supreme Court's notice is more than a procedural step — it raises the political temperature around Karnataka's urban-revenue model. A government that won in the High Court must now publicly defend, within four weeks, the charge that it is adding storeys without adding infrastructure. By invoking Gurugram as the cautionary case and Greater Noida as the contrast, the bench has effectively turned city planning failure into a national political talking point.
- If Premium FAR as a revenue route for urban local bodies is cast into doubt, the state faces politically awkward alternatives for funding Bengaluru's civic infrastructure.
- The court's clarification that additional FAR cannot regularise illegal construction revives the older, politically charged argument around schemes like Akrama-Sakrama.
- Civic groups such as the Citizens Action Forum are increasingly contesting urban policy through the courts rather than electoral platforms, a shift in where pressure gets applied.
- The appearance of the Solicitor General alongside senior state counsel, and the defence that additional FAR stays capped at 0.6 with parking rules intact, signals how financially and politically important the scheme is to the government.
- Traffic, water and power stress being aired in open court hands the opposition a ready-made line of attack on Bengaluru's liveability.
What to watch — Watch the response Bengaluru authorities file within four weeks — whether they defend the scheme wholesale or quietly retreat on the regularisation provision to limit political exposure.
Issuing notice and making oral observations is not a ruling against the scheme, and the story does not establish how any party will react or what the electoral consequences might be.
Deep dive
Research brief · 8 facts · 2 dates · exam-readyThe brief
Context
The Karnataka government's Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme lets property owners buy construction rights beyond the normally permitted FAR by paying premium charges, with the stated aims of enabling vertical growth and raising revenue for urban local bodies. On June 15, the Karnataka High Court upheld the scheme's constitutional validity, rejecting claims that it violated property rights and undercut the value of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). NGO 'Citizens Action Forum' has challenged that order in the Supreme Court, arguing Bengaluru's roads, water, power and parking cannot absorb the extra construction. Hearing the plea on Tuesday, the Supreme Court cited Gurugram's monsoon civic collapse as a warning and Greater Noida's long-horizon planning as a contrast.
Key facts
- Supreme Court issued notice on the Citizens Action Forum plea and gave Bengaluru authorities four weeks to file their response.
- The bench clarified that additional FAR cannot be used to regularise illegal construction.
- CJI Kant said Greater Noida was planned keeping the next 30-40 years in mind, unlike the township in question.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that overall additional FAR remains capped at 0.6.
- Mehta said setback and parking requirements continue to apply and money collected under the scheme goes into a dedicated fund for civic infrastructure.
- On June 15, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Premium FAR scheme.
- The scheme was introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961.
- The High Court held the scheme did not violate Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution.
Timeline
- June 15Karnataka High Court upholds the constitutional validity of the state's Premium FAR scheme and dismisses petitions alleging violation of property rights and erosion of TDR value.
- Tuesday (date not stated in the source)Supreme Court hears the Citizens Action Forum plea, cites Gurugram and Greater Noida, issues notice, gives Bengaluru authorities four weeks to respond, and says additional FAR cannot regularise illegal construction.
Who has a stake
- Supreme Court bench (CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi) — Examining whether premium FAR is being granted without matching infrastructure expansion; flagged Bengaluru's 'traffic nightmare'.
- Citizens Action Forum (petitioner NGO) — Argues road width has become the main criterion for premium FAR and that the scheme ignores Bengaluru's infrastructure pressure and devalues TDRs.
- Karnataka government and Bengaluru authorities — Defending the scheme's validity; must respond to the Supreme Court notice within four weeks.
- Landowners holding TDRs — Claim premium FAR is sold at rates significantly below market cost of TDRs, rendering their compensation instrument 'nugatory'.
- Developers and property owners — Ability to buy additional construction rights for vertical development, subject to the 0.6 cap, setback and parking norms.
- Urban local bodies — Revenue from premium charges routed to a dedicated civic infrastructure fund.
Why it matters
The case tests whether Indian cities can keep selling extra building rights without simultaneously expanding drainage, sewer lines, roads and parking — the gap the court illustrated through Gurugram's collapse during heavy rain. It also raises the legal question of whether a premium FAR provision under the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act can be used to regularise illegal construction, as the petitioner alleges, echoing the earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme.
UPSC angle
Prelims pointers
- FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the plot on which it is built.
- Karnataka's Premium FAR scheme was introduced under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961.
- Karnataka High Court on June 15 held the scheme not violative of Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution.
- Article 300A concerns the right to property; the HC held policy-driven fluctuation in property values does not violate it.
- Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that overall additional FAR under the scheme is capped at 0.6.
- Akrama-Sakrama was an earlier Karnataka scheme under which unauthorised constructions were legalised.
Mains framing
The Premium FAR dispute captures the core tension in Indian urban policy: cities with limited land are pushed toward vertical growth (as the Solicitor General argued, 'vertical growth was the only way out'), while their trunk infrastructure — drainage, sewerage, roads, water, power and parking — is not expanded in step. The Supreme Court's invocation of Gurugram, where civic systems collapse in heavy rain, against Greater Noida, planned with a 30-40 year horizon, frames the issue as one of sequencing: monetising development rights must follow, not precede, carrying-capacity assessment and infrastructure augmentation. The petitioner's specific objections — that road width has effectively become the sole criterion for granting premium FAR, and that a provision in the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act could let premium FAR regularise existing illegal construction in the manner of Akrama-Sakrama — go to the integrity of planning law, while the TDR argument raises equity for landowners compensated in development rights rather than cash. The state's defence rests on the 0.6 cap, continuing setback and parking norms, and a dedicated civic infrastructure fund. The way forward, as suggested by the proceedings, lies in judicially recorded assurances that additional FAR cannot regularise illegality, transparent ring-fencing and audit of premium collections for infrastructure, and criteria for granting FAR that go beyond road width to the actual capacity of water, sewerage, drainage and traffic networks.
Key terms
- Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
- The ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the plot on which it is built.
- Premium FAR scheme
- Karnataka scheme letting owners buy construction rights beyond the ordinarily permitted FAR on payment of prescribed premium charges, to enable vertical growth and raise ULB revenue.
- Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
- Development rights given to landowners in lieu of monetary compensation for land; petitioners say cheaper premium FAR renders TDRs 'nugatory'.
- Akrama-Sakrama
- An earlier Karnataka state scheme under which unauthorised constructions were legalised.
- Section 18-B, KTCP Act, 1961
- The provision of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act under which the Premium FAR scheme was introduced.
- Article 300A
- Constitutional provision on the right to property; the High Court held policy decisions causing property value fluctuation do not violate it.
Practice questions
- Selling additional development rights without augmenting trunk infrastructure shifts the cost of urban growth onto citizens. Critically examine in the light of the Supreme Court's observations on Gurugram and Greater Noida.
- Discuss the legal and planning implications of using Premium FAR as an instrument of municipal finance. How should such schemes be linked to a city's carrying capacity?
- What are Transferable Development Rights, and how can pricing of premium FAR below TDR market value affect landowners compensated through TDRs?
Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.