Subheadline: A KSPCB report to the National Green Tribunal points to illegal disposal, weak compliance and underused processing facilities, while experts dispute whether public awareness is the central problem.
Standfirst: Bengaluru’s construction and demolition waste problem has moved beyond the question of whether residents know how to dispose of debris. In a report filed before the National Green Tribunal, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board acknowledged concerns about public awareness but also identified violations of the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, illegal disposal and ineffective implementation. The report places responsibility across institutions: the KSPCB is responsible for monitoring compliance, while the Greater Bengaluru Authority must ensure that waste generated within its jurisdiction is disposed of according to the rules. Experts and civic activists cited by Bangalore Mirror argue that awareness campaigns have existed for years and that the more urgent failure is enforcement. The evidence presented in the report raises a broader question about whether Bengaluru’s waste system can convert regulations and processing infrastructure into routine compliance.
Bengaluru’s construction and demolition waste problem is being examined by the National Green Tribunal at a moment when the city has a formal regulatory framework, designated processing facilities and multiple public authorities responsible for implementation. Yet the system remains vulnerable to illegal disposal and low utilisation of available facilities. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board’s report to the tribunal suggests that the challenge is not simply the absence of rules, but the difficulty of making those rules work across a rapidly changing urban jurisdiction.
The report was filed in response to a suo motu case registered by the NGT after a news article published a few years ago. In its submission, the KSPCB said Bengaluru may have low public awareness about the appropriate disposal of construction and demolition waste and about whom to contact for disposal. It also referred to violations by waste generators and illegal disposal, making clear that the problem extends beyond household knowledge or individual behaviour.
That distinction is important because construction and demolition waste is generated through building activity, repair, renovation and infrastructure work. The report, as cited by Bangalore Mirror, places the issue within a regulated system rather than treating it only as a public cleanliness problem. Waste generators are expected to follow the applicable rules, while authorities must monitor, collect, process and ensure lawful disposal. When any part of that chain fails, debris can move outside the formal system.
The KSPCB has clarified the division of institutional responsibility. It is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, as amended in 2025. The Greater Bengaluru Authority, meanwhile, is responsible for ensuring that construction and demolition waste generated within its jurisdiction is disposed of in accordance with the rules. This division assigns the regulatory monitoring function and the civic implementation function to different institutions.
The KSPCB also referred to the recommendations of the Justice Subhash B Adi Committee. The committee was constituted following an NGT order concerning the effective disposal of municipal solid waste and made recommendations to the Greater Bengaluru Authority on construction and demolition waste disposal. The board said the adoption and implementation of those recommendations needed to be addressed by the civic authority. Its report therefore identifies implementation by the GBA as a central unfinished task.
The regulatory framework has also expanded. Under the Environment (Construction & Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025, the KSPCB is responsible for monitoring the extended producer responsibility and waste utilisation framework, coordinating with various authorities, conducting awareness programmes with urban local bodies and stakeholders, and submitting an annual report to the Central Pollution Control Board. The board said it had already written to the GBA and Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited seeking strict implementation of the 2025 rules and was preparing instructions for concerned stakeholder departments.
This creates a more demanding administrative test than simply issuing public advisories. The 2025 rules, as described in the report, require coordination between the pollution control board, the civic authority, the waste management company and other stakeholder departments. The effectiveness of the system will depend on whether those responsibilities produce visible compliance: waste generators using authorised channels, authorities tracking disposal and processing facilities receiving sufficient material.
The available evidence points to a gap between formal capacity and actual use. According to a source cited in the report, the two construction and demolition waste processing units at Chikkajala and Kannur continue to receive minimal quantities of waste. Bangalore Mirror also reported that an attempt to contact the Kannur facility did not receive a response and that sources said both facilities were on the verge of shutting down.
The information does not establish the total volume of construction and demolition waste generated in Bengaluru, the designed capacity of the two facilities or the precise quantity being processed. It does, however, identify a basic operational contradiction: processing units exist, but the formal system may not be supplying them with enough waste to remain viable. If waste is being generated while authorised facilities receive minimal quantities, the missing link lies somewhere between generation, reporting, collection, transport, enforcement and processing.
That gap also complicates the public-awareness argument. The KSPCB identified a possible lack of awareness about disposal procedures and contact points. But city-based solid waste management experts cited by Bangalore Mirror said awareness efforts had been continuing for about a decade. One expert argued that construction is not being carried out by the public but by an industry that is regulated, and that enforcement of the rules is therefore the key issue. Civic activists similarly called for stricter enforcement rather than more awareness campaigns.
The disagreement is not necessarily about whether awareness has value. It is about where accountability should begin. If residents do not know whom to contact, the system has a communication problem. If builders, contractors and other waste generators know the rules but can still dispose of debris illegally, the problem is enforcement. If authorised processing units remain underused, the problem may also involve access, collection arrangements, monitoring or the economic incentives governing disposal.
The report does not provide enough information to determine which of these failures is dominant. It does show that responsibility is distributed across several actors. The KSPCB monitors compliance and coordinates implementation. The GBA is responsible for ensuring lawful disposal within its jurisdiction. Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited has been asked to implement the rules strictly. Waste generators are expected to comply, while processing facilities must remain operational and accessible.
This distribution can help create a functioning system, but it can also make accountability difficult when outcomes are poor. The solid waste management experts quoted in the report described a tendency among authorities to pass responsibility between institutions. The KSPCB’s submission, by setting out separate responsibilities and calling on the GBA to implement the Adi Committee’s recommendations, makes institutional coordination a visible part of the NGT’s scrutiny.
The tribunal’s involvement adds another layer of oversight. The case began suo motu after earlier reporting, and the KSPCB’s submission provides the tribunal with the board’s assessment of awareness, rule violations, illegal disposal and implementation responsibilities. The report does not indicate the NGT’s final determination or prescribe a completed enforcement programme. What it does establish is that construction and demolition waste remains an unresolved governance issue before the tribunal.
For Bengaluru, the larger urban question is whether the city can manage the material consequences of construction at the same pace as it permits building and redevelopment. Construction activity produces waste that must be moved through a controlled chain. Without reliable disposal routes and enforcement, the costs are transferred to public spaces, roadsides, vacant land and municipal systems, even when the precise locations are not identified in the supplied report.
The evidence currently confirms four points. The KSPCB has identified possible low awareness, rule violations and illegal disposal. The GBA has responsibility for ensuring lawful disposal within its jurisdiction. The 2025 rules give the KSPCB additional monitoring, coordination and reporting duties. And two processing facilities are reportedly receiving minimal quantities of waste, raising concerns about their viability. What remains unclear is the scale of non-compliant disposal, the reasons for low facility utilisation and the enforcement action taken against violators.
Those unanswered questions will determine whether Bengaluru’s construction and demolition waste framework is merely a set of formal responsibilities or an operating urban service. The next milestones are the implementation of the 2025 rules, the GBA’s response to the Adi Committee recommendations, the instructions issued to stakeholder departments and the steps taken by the authorities to ensure that waste reaches authorised processing facilities.
