Back
Issues Sweeping Safety Guidelines for Bengaluru's Illegal PG Accommodations
In a landmark intervention, the has laid down an extensive 80-point regulatory framework for Paying Guest (PG) accommodations in Bengaluru, after being confronted with staggering numbers: nearly half of the estimated 5,000 PG establishments in the city's eastern zone are operating without valid licences, proper plan sanctions, or clearances. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over a , expressed grave concern over the potential for disaster in such unregulated spaces and issued to multiple state and civic authorities.
A Staggering Reality: Half of Bengaluru's PGs Operate Illegally
The proceedings stemmed from a submission made by counsel , representing the (GBA). He informed the court that while notices had been issued to 68 PG accommodations in Bangalore North for , the situation in Bangalore East was far more alarming. Of the roughly 5,000 PGs in that area, an astonishing 2,500 are running without a proper licence, approved building plan, or adherence to statutory safety requirements such as fire services. The court noted that these establishments also fail to comply with many other legal mandates, creating a ticking time bomb for the thousands of students, employees, and migrants who rely on them.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter relating to paying guests, the number of paying guest accommodations in the city of Bangalore, and the number of persons who would be affected adversely if any untoward incident were to occur, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents would have to implement the earlier guidelines strictly,” Justice Govindaraj observed.
The Court's Step: 80 Comprehensive Guidelines
Recognising that existing guidelines were insufficient, the court formulated a detailed checklist covering everything from building compliance to occupant dignity. The framework mandates that all PGs—whether licensed, unlicensed, or masquerading as hostels or co-living spaces—must be identified and inspected. The court emphasised that a does not regularise , and authorities must examine , , and check for , , , or .
Fire and Life Safety: A Primary Concern
was singled out as a “primary .” The court directed that no immediate danger to life be postponed for routine proceedings. Specifically, it prohibited the storage of LPG cylinders in staircases, corridors, or sleeping areas and ordered strict inspection of electrical panels, earthing, and circuit protection. “No bed, cupboard, refrigerator, luggage, bicycle, waste or other obstruction shall be permitted in an , staircase or ,” the order states.
Protecting Privacy Even in Safety: A Balance
While demanding enhanced security, the court was careful to safeguard occupant privacy. is banned in bedrooms, bathrooms, and toilets. Operators cannot photograph or circulate private activities of occupants except where legally authorised. “ shall not become a justification for into the ,” the judgment clarifies. At the same time, PGs accommodating women or vulnerable persons must maintain , including controlled entry, visitor verification, and functioning locks.
Enforcement and Accountability
The court classified into three risk categories: for (blocked fire exits, dangerous electrical installations, gross overcrowding), for , and for . For the most serious breaches, authorities are empowered to seal, close, or even demolish structures in accordance with .
To ensure effective implementation, the court impleaded several additional authorities as respondents, including the (Urban Development and Health Departments), the (Fire Forces), the (FSSAI), the (BWSSB), and . It made clear that “if there are any by any of the paying guest accommodation owners or operators and no action is taken by the concerned officers, they would be for any untoward incident which may happen.”
A and Continuing Monitoring
The court directed the competent authority to consider establishing a of PG accommodations, containing premises details, licence status, fire-safety records, and inspection history, while ensuring occupant personal information remains non-public. Authorities are required to file a consolidated status report by the next hearing detailing the number of PGs identified, licensed, inspected, and found compliant, along with enforcement actions taken. A identifying each applicable requirement, its statutory source, enforcement authority, and consequences for non-compliance must be placed before the court within six weeks.
“The regulatory objective is to ensure that accommodation is provided lawfully, safely, hygienically, without creating unreasonable risks to neighbours or the public, with due regard to the privacy and dignity of occupants, and in accordance with the governing such establishments,” the court affirmed.
The matter will next be heard on .
