KARNATAKA HC RESTRAINS UNFETTERED CONTRACTS ON BENGALURU TWIN TUNNEL ROAD PROJECT; RULES POLICY CHOICE MUST COMPLY WITH THE LAW

BENGALURU: The High Court of Karnataka has intervened in the state government's multi-billion dollar infrastructure plans, directing that any contracts awarded for the proposed Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Road project will remain strictly subject to the final outcome of ongoing public interest litigations.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha clarified that while the judiciary will not sit in judgment over the economic wisdom of government policy, the executive remains bound by the rule of law and statutory planning frameworks.

Judiciary Avoids "Policy Wisdom," Focuses on Process
The directions were issued during a hearing on a batch of petitions challenging the state's ambitious 17-kilometer North-South tunnel corridor, designed to link Hebbal directly to the Silk Board Junction. The project has been heavily promoted by the administration as a definitive solution to Bengaluru’s notorious traffic congestion.

Acknowledging the city's infrastructure crisis, Chief Justice Bakhru remarked:
"There is huge traffic in Bengaluru. They say this is one of the solutions. Whether a tunnel is the answer or not is not for us to decide. We are not substituting our views for that of the government. But the decision must be in accordance with law."

To protect the public exchequer and prevent the creation of third-party rights while the matter is sub-judice, the Bench ordered the state government to explicitly communicate the pendency of these legal proceedings to all prospective bidders and contractors.

Core Legal Challenges: Environmental and Master Plan Deviations
The legal challenge, led by prominent civic activists including 82-year-old Dr. Adikesavalu Ravindra and noted commentator Prakash Belawadi, focuses entirely on procedural and statutory non-compliance.
The petitioners handed over a comprehensive 7,000-page documentary compilation detailing alleged regulatory lapses. The challenge rests primarily on three legal pillars:

• Master Plan Contradictions: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the sub-surface project completely bypasses Bengaluru’s statutory Master Plan and violates the established legal framework governing urban land transport planning.
• Absence of Environmental Assessments: The petitioners contend that the state has rushed the tendering process without conducting a mandatory, comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), crucial for a subterranean project of this scale.
• Procedural Irregularities: Advocates representing the petitioners emphasized that the litigation does not contest the government’s right to choose infrastructure models, but rather the flawed, opaque manner in which the approvals were fast-tracked.

Next Steps and Legal Implications
The High Court’s order effectively places a legal cloud over the bidding process, signaling to international and domestic infrastructure consortia that any financial exposure or contractual agreement entered into at this stage carries significant legal risk. By ordering that no further "equities" be created, the court has ensured that the state cannot later argue that the project is too advanced or costly to halt if found illegal.

The State government is expected to file its detailed response addressing the statutory deviations and environmental clearances before the next scheduled hearing on August 20.
Case Title: Prakash Belawadi & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha
Next Hearing Date: August 20
Discription: BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that any contracts awarded for the proposed 17-kilometer Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Road project will be subject to the final outcome of ongoing litigations.

Hearing petitions filed by civic activists challenging the Hebbal to Silk Board corridor, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru clarified that while the court will not question the government's policy wisdom in tackling traffic, the decision-making process must strictly comply with the law.

The petitioners allege severe legal infirmities, including deviations from the city’s Master Plan and the total absence of a mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). To protect public funds, the court ordered the state to warn all prospective contractors about the pending lawsuits. The next hearing is scheduled for August 20.