Subheadline: The state government said it will seek public views before preparing and introducing a revised version of the legislation.
Bengaluru | September 3, 2026
The Karnataka Cabinet has decided to withdraw the controversial Government Parks Preservation (Amendment) Bill after opposition from residents, environmental groups and political parties over proposed changes to the use and protection of public parks, the state government said on Thursday.
The decision was taken at a Cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar on September 3. Deputy Chief Minister G. Parameshwara announced the decision at a press conference after the meeting.
“ The government is always committed to public interest and public opinion. There was strong opposition from the public and opposition parties regarding the Parks Amendment Bill. In view of this, it was decided after discussion in the Cabinet meeting to withdraw the Bill for now,” Parameshwara said, according to Vijay Karnataka.
The legislation had drawn criticism over provisions that opponents said could alter the character and use of parkland and cause environmental harm. Citizens, environmental advocates and several organisations had raised objections to proposals concerning the use, management and preservation of public parks.
The Bill also became part of a wider dispute over plans involving Bengaluru’s parks. Bengaluru South MP Tejasvi Surya had opposed the proposed use of five per cent of parkland and the construction of a tunnel road at Lalbagh. He had led the “Save Lalbagh” campaign against the proposals, the report said.
The Bharatiya Janata Party had criticised the Bill and submitted a formal complaint on the issue to the Governor. Following the Cabinet’s decision, the government said it would collect public views, consolidate suggestions and make necessary changes before bringing a revised Bill in the future.
The withdrawal does not end the policy debate over how public parks should be used, managed and protected. It places the next step on the government’s proposed public consultation and revision process. No timeline for introducing a new version of the legislation was specified in the report.
