The Supreme Court has cautioned Karnataka against using its Premium floor area ratio (FAR) scheme to regularise unauthorised constructions, saying approvals under the policy will be subject to the final outcome of a petition challenging the scheme. The order directly affects the framework introduced in April 2025 to allow developers to purchase additional floor space by paying premium charges to civic authorities.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Karnataka government on a petition filed by Citizens Action Forum. The bench directed the respondents to file counter-affidavits and said that the clearance of Premium FAR would remain subject to the final decision in the case.
The petitioners have argued that road width has effectively become the main criterion for granting Premium FAR, potentially placing additional pressure on Bengaluru’s already strained civic infrastructure. During the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant referred to Greater Noida as an example of planned development where infrastructure was designed to support future growth. He said priority should be given to basic amenities, according to the report.
Justice Bagchi also acknowledged concerns about Bengaluru’s traffic conditions. The observations came as the petitioners argued that allowing additional floors without corresponding infrastructure capacity could worsen congestion and increase pressure on roads, parking, water supply and sewerage systems.
The dispute follows a June 15 decision by a Karnataka High Court division bench headed by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, which upheld the validity of the Premium FAR scheme. The High Court had held that the scheme was not equivalent to the Akrama-Sakrama scheme, under which the government regularises unauthorised constructions by imposing a penalty. The High Court decision has now been challenged before the Supreme Court.
The petitioners have alleged that Premium FAR could be used as a route to regularise illegal structures or unauthorised buildings under the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act. The Karnataka government has rejected that allegation, maintaining that buildings covered by Akrama-Sakrama would not be regularised through the Premium FAR policy.
According to the state government’s submissions, the additional FAR is capped at 0.6 of the original FAR. The government has also said that the policy does not waive mandatory parking or setback requirements and that revenue collected from the scheme is transferred to a dedicated infrastructure fund. The state has argued that limited urban land makes vertical expansion necessary.
The bench questioned whether additional construction could be supported without a matching expansion of basic services. The Chief Justice observed that residents could face inadequate parking, insufficient water supply and blocked sewerage if infrastructure does not keep pace with the increase in building size and population. The court’s notice requires the respondents to respond before the matter is considered further.
