उच्चतम न्यायालय (Supreme Court) ने कर्नाटक नगर एवं ग्राम नियोजन अधिनियम की धारा 18-बी की वैधता पर नोटिस जारी करते हुए राज्य सरकार को निर्देश दिया है कि वह प्रीमियम एफएआर (Premium FAR) योजना के जरिए अनधिकृत निर्माणों को नियमित (regularise) न करे।
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued notice to the State of Karnataka on a petition challenging its controversial Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) framework. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, explicitly directed that the state policy cannot be utilized as a mechanism to regularize illegal constructions while judicial scrutiny remains ongoing.
The interim directive brings temporary relief to civic activist groups who raised alarms that the policy would aggravate Bengaluru’s urban strain.
Interim Order and Core Directions
Hearing the petition filed by the Citizens Action Forum challenging a June 2026 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the top court passed an interim order constraining the implementation of the scheme.
"Issue notice. Let Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Meanwhile, the Premium FAR shall not be used for the purpose of regularising unauthorised construction. Similarly, the clearance of Premium FAR shall be subject to the final outcome of this petition," the Bench directed.
The matter challenges Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, which empowers property developers to purchase additional built-up area over and above permissible limits upon payment of specified premium fees to state authorities.
Arguments Before the Apex Court
Petitioner’s Submission: Infrastructure Under Threat
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for the petitioner organization, argued that the state policy relies primarily on road width as the controlling criterion for granting additional FAR. He submitted that granting extra construction rights without proportional enhancement of basic civic utilities threatens to severely overburden Bengaluru’s already fragile public infrastructure.
The petitioner further expressed apprehension that developers could leverage the scheme under the Greater Bengaluru Authority administrative framework to circumvent building bylaws, effectively executing backdoor regularizations similar to the controversial Akrama-Sakrama scheme.
State’s Response: Controlled Vertical Growth
Refuting allegations of illegal regularizations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Karnataka, assured the Bench that the policy was designed purely for planned vertical growth rather than amnesty for illegal structures.
- No Amnesty Backdoor: The Solicitor General formally stated on record that unauthorized structures governed under amnesty policies like Akrama-Sakrama would strictly fall outside the purview of the Premium FAR scheme.
- Strict Construction Caps: The State submitted that additional floor area is capped at a maximum of 0.6 times the baseline permissible FAR and does not relax setback rules or mandatory parking requirements.
- Infrastructure Fund: Proceeds gathered from premium charges are earmarked for a dedicated municipal infrastructure fund to handle civic upgrades.
Bench Expresses Skepticism over Lagging Civic Infrastructure
During oral interactions, the Supreme Court Bench expressed strong skepticism regarding the practice of allowing multi-storey densification prior to upgrading underlying public utilities.
CJI Surya Kant noted that in practice, urban infrastructure rarely keeps pace with sudden real estate expansion. The Bench highlighted that once commercial and residential projects complete construction, developers exit, leaving long-term residents to deal with severe civic deficiencies.
"It is not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied... 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 stories," CJI Kant remarked.
The Chief Justice contrasted the situation with planned townships like Greater Noida, where long-term planning accounts for several decades of futuristic demand before high-density construction is approved. Permitting dense construction first and attempting to generate funds to build basic amenities later remains inherently problematic, the Court observed.
Separately, Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted the pressing challenge of vehicular congestion in the capital city, acknowledging that urban centers face severe traffic bottlenecks when floor area ratios are raised without comprehensive transit planning.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court’s interim freeze prevents local municipal bodies and planning agencies from granting retrospective sanctions or regularizations under the guise of Premium FAR payments.
With four weeks granted to the Karnataka government to file its counter-affidavit, the final validity of Section 18-B of the KTCP Act and its operational guidelines will depend on the apex court's ultimate determination on whether vertical urban density can be legally decoupled from immediate, pre-existing infrastructure capacity.
Decsription: The Supreme Court of India has restrained the Karnataka government from using its Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme to regularize unauthorized constructions. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana issued notice on a petition by the Citizens Action Forum challenging Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, which allows builders to buy extra floor area. Responding to concerns that the policy functions like the controversial Akrama-Sakrama scheme, the apex court ordered that Premium FAR clearances will remain subject to the final case outcome. The Bench voiced strong skepticism over allowing high-density multi-storey development in Bengaluru without first establishing adequate basic civic infrastructure, drainage, and road capacity.