India's Supreme Court has highlighted stark differences in urban planning, citing Gurugram's recurring infrastructure failures during monsoon rains compared to Greater Noida's forward-thinking development. These observations were made during a hearing concerning the constitutional validity of Karnataka's Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme for Bengaluru.
A bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned whether civic infrastructure was adequately expanding to support increased construction density in cities. The court emphasized that simply allowing more building without upgrading essential services leads to systemic collapse.
Gurugram's Infrastructure Collapse
Chief Justice Kant specifically pointed to Gurugram, noting how its infrastructure system falters during heavy rains or any 'natural calamity.' He observed a lack of visible improvement or addition to the city's basic infrastructure, such as new roads, sewer lines, or flyovers, despite the increasing burden from multi-storey buildings on existing plots. This imbalance, he suggested, makes the city vulnerable.
In stark contrast, the bench praised Greater Noida's approach. Chief Justice Kant remarked that Greater Noida faces no such problems because its development was meticulously planned with a long-term vision, accounting for the needs of the next 30-40 years.
Bengaluru's Premium FAR Scheme Under Scrutiny
The court's remarks came as it heard a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision to uphold Bengaluru's Premium FAR scheme. This scheme permits property owners to acquire additional construction rights beyond standard limits by paying prescribed premium charges. FAR, or Floor Area Ratio, is the proportion of a building's total floor area to the size of the plot it occupies.
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing the Citizens Action Forum, argued that the scheme primarily uses road width as a criterion for granting additional FAR, potentially leading to substantial new construction without adequately addressing Bengaluru's already strained infrastructure, including parking, water supply, electricity, and the city's notorious traffic congestion. Justice Bagchi echoed these concerns, calling Bengaluru's traffic situation a 'nightmare.'
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defending the scheme, clarified that the overall additional FAR remains capped at 0.6 and that existing setback and parking regulations still apply. He assured the court that developers must meet all regulatory requirements before purchasing additional FAR. Mehta also stated that funds generated from the scheme are allocated to a dedicated fund specifically for civic infrastructure development.
The petitioner had also drawn parallels between the Premium FAR scheme and Karnataka’s earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme, which aimed to regularize illegal constructions. However, Mehta categorically stated that the new scheme has no connection to regularizing unauthorized construction and is entirely distinct.
The Supreme Court has issued notice on the plea, directing Bengaluru authorities to submit their response within four weeks. The Karnataka High Court had previously affirmed the scheme's constitutional validity in June, finding it consistent with Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution.