Bengaluru Tunnel PIL: High Court Scrutinizes Environmental Waivers and Heritage Risks Amidst Public Outcry

BENGALURU – The Karnataka High Court has become the central battleground for the contentious Rs 19,000 crore Hebbal-Silk Board twin tunnel road project, as a division bench scrutinizes the state government's claims and the project's controversial exemption from a prior environmental clearance. The court's intervention follows two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the project on grounds of alleged procedural illegalities, lack of transparency, and the existential threat it poses to Bengaluru's iconic Lalbagh Botanical Garden.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha is presiding over the matter, which consolidates petitions filed by prominent citizens, including actor and activist Prakash Belawadi and Bengaluru South MP Tejasvi Surya. The litigation places a judicial lens on the multi-crore infrastructure project, hailed by the government as a panacea for the city's crippling traffic but decried by activists as an ecological and financial disaster.

During a recent hearing, the Advocate General for Karnataka, Shashi Kiran Shetty, made a pointed assurance to the court. "The Karnataka Government informed the High Court on Tuesday (October 28) that no trees are being cut inside Bengaluru's Lalbagh Botanical Garden for construction of the proposed Twin Tunnel Road," the court was told. While this statement provided a temporary reprieve, it did little to assuage the broader legal and environmental concerns raised by the petitioners, which form the core of the legal challenge.

The Core of the Legal Challenge: Quashing Tenders and Questioning Reports

The PILs, identified as WP 31626/2025 and WP 28664/2025, present a multi-pronged legal assault on the tunnel project. The petitioners are not merely opposing the construction but are seeking to dismantle its administrative and procedural foundations. The pleas call for the quashing of the tender notification dated July 14, 2025, and all subsequent actions, including the bid submission and evaluation process.

Central to their argument is the alleged invalidity of the foundational documents—the feasibility study and the Detailed Project Report (DPR). The petitioners seek to quash the December 2024 feasibility study by Altinok Consulting Engineering Pvt Ltd and the DPR prepared by Rodic Consultants Pvt Ltd, including a revised version from February 2025. The grounds for this challenge are severe: "non-compliance with mandatory legal standards, internal inconsistencies and non-application of mind." This line of attack moves the case from a simple policy disagreement to a question of administrative law and the duty of public authorities to act rationally and in accordance with established norms.

Environmental Oversight Under Fire

Perhaps the most significant legal flashpoint is the challenge to a letter issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on November 26, 2024. This communication opined that a prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is not required for the massive underground road project. The petitioners argue this is a blatant disregard for environmental jurisprudence and seek to have the letter quashed.

The petition demands that no further steps be taken on the project without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The plea details a list of prerequisites that must be met, including: * A comprehensive mobility plan for underground construction. * A detailed report on land acquisition costs. * Utility and drainage mapping with a clear diversion plan.

This insistence on a mandatory EIA is a cornerstone of environmental law for projects of this magnitude. Bypassing such a process, the petitioners contend, violates the spirit and letter of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and its associated notifications. The High Court has taken this concern seriously, specifically directing the government’s counsel to seek the Geological Survey of India’s (GSI) opinion on the project's environmental impact.

The Unassailable Heritage of Lalbagh

Beyond procedural lapses, the petitions highlight the grave and irreversible threat to Lalbagh, a 240-acre ecological and heritage treasure. The proposed tunnel alignment passes dangerously close to the garden, which is home to a rich ecosystem and, critically, a 3-billion-year-old peninsular gneiss rock formation.

This is not just any rock; the GSI declared it a National Geological Monument in 1975. Atop it sits a 16th-century Kempegowda Watch Tower. Activist and Citizens for Citizens head Rajkumar Dugar emphasized its significance, stating, “Damaging it could even lead to flooding, as water channels run through the rock.”

Legal experts note that any activity impacting a National Geological Monument could attract provisions related to the protection of national heritage. The petitioners have alleged that key stakeholders, including the Archaeology Department, the GSI, and even the Horticulture Department which manages Lalbagh, were not consulted during the project's planning phase. An official from the Mines and Geology Department confirmed to the media that they learned of the tunnel plan only through news reports, stating that any tunnel alignment closer than 300 metres to Lalbagh should be "scrapped."

Political and Public Pressure Mounts

The legal battle is amplified by a groundswell of public and political opposition. MP Tejasvi Surya, also one of the petitioners' counsels, has been vocal in his resistance. "Not even six inches of Lalbagh’s land will be given for this tunnel. If the government tries to forcibly acquire it, we will launch a public agitation," Surya warned, framing the issue as a fight to protect Bengaluru's identity.

In response, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, a staunch defender of the project, has dismissed the opposition as politically motivated "empty talk," while also agreeing to meet with Surya to discuss alternatives. He has maintained that the project will proceed without harming Lalbagh. "Except for Surya, no one else is opposing it…A citizen stopped me and told me that the tunnel project should not be stopped for any reason," a statement from his office quoted.

This political jousting underscores the high stakes involved, but for the legal community, the case transcends politics. It represents a critical test of the efficacy of the PIL as a tool to hold the executive accountable for large-scale infrastructure projects that carry significant environmental and social costs. The court’s eventual ruling could set important precedents on the mandatory nature of EIAs, the weight given to expert bodies like the GSI, and the judiciary's role in balancing development with the preservation of environmental and cultural heritage. As the High Court awaits responses from the state and the GSI, all eyes are on the judiciary to navigate this complex intersection of law, development, and ecology.