A recent report filed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) before the National Green Tribunal has brought Bengaluru’s construction and demolition waste problem back into focus. The board identified inadequate disposal practices, violations by waste generators and possible gaps in public awareness, while placing responsibility for disposal within the Greater Bengaluru Authority’s jurisdiction.
The immediate dispute is not only about whether residents know where to take construction debris. It is about whether Bengaluru has a functioning system that connects waste generators, civic authorities, regulators and processing facilities. The KSPCB’s submission suggests that the city’s rules exist, but their implementation remains uneven. Statements from solid waste management experts and civic activists point to a different diagnosis: awareness campaigns have continued for years, while enforcement has not kept pace.
That distinction matters because construction and demolition waste is generated primarily through building activity, repairs, redevelopment and infrastructure work. The source report quotes a solid waste management expert saying that construction is carried out by the industry rather than by the public, and that enforcement of the rules is therefore the central issue. Civic activists similarly argued that stricter compliance measures, rather than additional awareness efforts, are needed.
The KSPCB’s report was filed in response to a suo motu case before the NGT. The case followed a news report published several years ago, indicating that the tribunal’s concern is connected to a continuing civic problem rather than a single recent incident. The board has said that it is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, while the Greater Bengaluru Authority is responsible for ensuring that waste generated within its jurisdiction is disposed of according to the rules.
This division of responsibility is significant. Regulation and implementation are not the same function. A pollution control board can monitor compliance, coordinate with authorities and issue directions, but disposal on the ground depends on the civic administration, waste generators, transporters and processing operators. If any link is weak, debris can be left in unauthorised locations or diverted away from formal facilities even when a regulatory framework is in place.
The regulatory framework has also changed. The KSPCB referred to the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016, as amended in 2025. Under the Environment (Construction & Demolition) Waste Management Rules, 2025, the board is responsible for monitoring the extended producer responsibility and waste utilisation framework, coordinating with authorities, conducting awareness programmes with urban local bodies and stakeholders, and submitting an annual report to the Central Pollution Control Board.
The 2025 framework therefore gives the KSPCB a continuing monitoring and coordination role. It does not, however, remove the need for a clear municipal collection and disposal chain. The board has said it has written to the Greater Bengaluru Authority and Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited, seeking strict implementation of the newer rules. It is also preparing instructions for departments involved in implementation.
The report also brings in the recommendations of the Justice Subhash B Adi Committee. The committee was constituted after 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 KSPCB has said that the civic authority should adopt and strictly implement those recommendations.
The reference to the committee is important because it shows that Bengaluru’s C&D waste challenge has already been examined through an institutional process. The issue is not simply the absence of advice. It is whether recommendations are converted into operational rules, assigned to identifiable departments, funded where necessary and enforced against non-compliance.
The available evidence also points to a capacity problem. According to a source cited in the report, the two C&D waste processing units at Chikkajala and Kannur are receiving minimal quantities of waste and may be close to shutting down. When the newspaper attempted to contact the Kannur facility, it received no response. The report does not provide the plants’ designed capacity, current throughput, operating costs or the volume of C&D waste generated in Bengaluru. Those figures would be necessary to determine whether the facilities are underused because of weak collection, inadequate contracting, poor access, insufficient enforcement or some combination of these factors.
Still, the reported condition of the two facilities raises a basic question about the city’s waste chain. Processing infrastructure cannot function effectively if construction waste is not segregated, transported and delivered through authorised channels. Conversely, generators have little incentive to use formal facilities if collection arrangements are unclear, charges are difficult to verify, or unauthorised disposal is rarely penalised. The result can be a system where infrastructure exists but remains disconnected from the activity it was created to manage.
The disagreement over public awareness reflects this broader institutional gap. The KSPCB has said that awareness about proper disposal and whom to contact may be low. Experts quoted in the report dispute that emphasis, saying awareness efforts have been under way for about a decade. Both positions can be true in different parts of the system: information may not reach every household or small contractor, while the principal compliance failures may lie with commercial construction activity and weak enforcement.
The distinction between households, small contractors, large developers and public agencies is therefore essential. The supplied report does not provide a breakdown of waste generation by category, nor does it identify the number of violations, prosecutions, notices or penalties issued. Without that information, it is not possible to establish which group contributes most to illegal disposal or whether enforcement has been applied consistently. The KSPCB’s submission establishes the existence of a governance concern, but not the full scale or distribution of the problem.
Bengaluru’s institutional transition adds another layer. The KSPCB identifies the Greater Bengaluru Authority as the authority responsible for ensuring disposal within its jurisdiction, while also addressing Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited. The report does not explain how responsibilities are divided between the GBA, BSWML, other civic departments, contractors and processing facilities. That administrative clarity will be necessary if the 2025 rules are to be implemented without departments passing responsibility between one another.
The NGT proceedings provide an external accountability mechanism, but a tribunal case cannot by itself operate the city’s disposal network. Implementation will depend on routine administrative actions: identifying authorised collection points, ensuring transport, tracking waste movement, requiring compliance from generators, keeping processing facilities operational and publishing information that residents and contractors can use. The KSPCB’s stated plan to issue instructions and its request for strict implementation are steps in that direction, but the report does not establish whether those measures have produced measurable changes.
The numbers available in the report are limited but revealing. Bengaluru has two named C&D waste processing units, at Chikkajala and Kannur. The regulatory framework dates back to 2016 and was amended in 2025. Experts cited by the report say awareness work has continued for roughly 10 years. These figures describe a system with a long policy history, new regulatory obligations and a small number of identified processing facilities, yet no published measure in the report showing how much waste is being formally processed.
That missing data is central to the debate. A credible citywide system would need to show how much C&D waste is generated, how much is collected through authorised channels, how much reaches processing units, where illegal dumping occurs and what action follows. It would also need to distinguish between a facility receiving little waste because generation is low in its service area and one receiving little waste because the formal system is failing. The current report, as presented, does not answer those questions.
What it does establish is that Bengaluru’s challenge is not limited to public behaviour. It involves the relationship between regulation, municipal responsibility, processing capacity and enforcement. The KSPCB has identified its monitoring role and called on the GBA to implement the Justice Subhash B Adi Committee’s recommendations. Experts and activists have argued that the priority should be compliance rather than another cycle of general awareness messaging.
The next test will be whether the authorities can demonstrate implementation in operational terms. That means showing how the 2025 rules are being applied, how the committee’s recommendations are being adopted, whether the Chikkajala and Kannur facilities remain functional, and how waste generators are being directed and monitored. Until those details become visible, Bengaluru’s C&D waste policy will remain stronger on paper than in the disposal chain that residents and the construction industry rely on.
