The recent collapse of an apartment building in Bengaluru’s Babusapalya, which killed nine construction workers, has become a harsh reminder of Bengaluru’s troubling trajectory with illegal construction. Amid public outrage, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah announced on October 26 that a new law will be introduced to crack down on illegal constructions.

The issue of illegal constructions isn’t new; it stems from a procedural laxity. The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has a set framework under the BBMP Act, 2020 to address illegal constructions, mainly through Sections 248 and 356, which enable the issuance of notices and, eventually, demolition. However, enforcement rarely extends beyond notices being issued. 

Section 252, which aims to hold officers accountable, has proven vague, with penalties for negligence undefined, thus allowing a cycle where BBMP’s intervention stops after notices are issued. This gap in the law, experts say, builds an environment where contractors manipulate legal loopholes for their profits, often at the cost of public safety.

According to Sandeep Anirudhan, founder of Citizens’ Agenda for Bengaluru, BBMP officials often facilitate illegal activities for personal gain. "They've got clarity on devolution of responsibilities, but there is zero clarity on what the punishment for an official is if they don't do their job." This lack of accountability encourages officials to take bribes instead of upholding laws, with minimal risk of disciplinary action. 

“If there is no risk for you and you can make crores of rupees in a month, what will you choose?” Sandeep asks. 

Residents across Bengaluru have constantly flagged the surge in high-rises on plots as small as 30x40 square feet, having deviations from the plan approved by the BBMP that may even be 100%. Recently, a picture of a five-storey building constructed on a 250 square ft plot had gone viral on social media. While the BBMP rushed to demolish this structure immediately, its response, in other cases, is often limited to formal notices. 

Sandeep alleges that officials who ignore illegal constructions face, at most, suspensions rather than punishment proportionate to the gravity of potential public harm. He draws attention to the fact that suspension was the only action that the concerned official, assistant executive engineer Vinay K, faced after the collapse of the Babusapalya building. 

“Nine people died and one official was suspended. It is a dereliction of duty by the official, but what is the risk he faces? Zero. Are you equating the lives of nine people with a temporary suspension? The official caused a situation where the building could collapse and kill people. It is literally murder. The government should have filed a case of manslaughter against him.”

As Vittal BR, an advocate at the Karnataka High Court, points out, “No verification is conducted during construction to ensure that it is done as per the plan approved by the BBMP. Without doing that, officials cannot keep demolishing buildings. If a notice for demolition is issued for a building that has been granted permission, builders will go to the court.”

“The pattern has, unfortunately, become predictable,” he says, “Notices are sent, builders secure court stays, and further action stalls. Even if the BBMP proceeds with demolitions, the battle often heads to court, resulting in long legal limbo.” 

Vittal says that the officials’ dereliction of duty is costing homeowners who bought houses and apartments from builders. “The government says that they will demolish all unauthorised buildings. Where will the home buyers who invested their hard earned money go? The ministers and government are not going to compensate them. Why did they not do their work properly in the initial stage?” he asks.

What’s striking is how easily builders exploit the rules. The BBMP’s lack of rigorous checks further emboldens them.

Take for instance, the criterion of floor area ratio (FAR), which defines the maximum buildable area according to the size of the plot. According to Vittal, builders take advantage of the ever changing FAR values to justify floor extensions, often adding floors without enhancing foundational support. These create structures that, over time, are susceptible to collapse. 

Vittal explains how builders use FAR changes to their advantage. “Builders retain the ownership of the terraces of buildings, which in itself is illegal. Terraces are a part of the common area, and should go to the home buyers in the building, as per the sanction plans. But most sale agreements and sale deeds will say that the terrace will remain under the builder's possession and home buyers cannot question the builder in case of further improvement in the building. This is a loophole — when the FAR is revised by the government, the builder will get a revised sanction plan and start further construction on the terrace area.”

The consequences of such unchecked expansion are severe. Illegal structures crowd the city, straining essential services. "None of the areas where new buildings are rapidly coming up have the capacity to bear the traffic or the congestion, leading to overflowing sewage, power outages, and erratic water supply,” Sandeep says.

Political influence, according to Sandeep, has also prevented the BBMP Act from being fully implemented. “It is the politicians who are ultimately to blame. Our lawmakers are not serious about the laws. They create situations where they can keep making money out of illegalities,” he alleges. 

In addition to calling for stringent action against officials who look the other way, Sandeep believes that reform will be possible only with the devolution of power to local wards. 

Bengaluru’s failure to implement the Nagar Palika Act (The 74th Amendment) is a major hindrance to orderly urban planning. The Act, meant to empower urban local bodies and improve city governance, is yet to be effectively implemented. Had it not been the case, the city could have had a comprehensive master plan, proper zoning, and sufficient infrastructure planning. 

“Instead,” Sandeep says, “This ‘Constitutional crisis’ has left Bengaluru to grow without adequate planning or civic governance, exacerbated by a city council that has not held elections in four years.”