Karnataka High Court Directs Government to Scrap Stalled Infrastructure Corridor
The Karnataka High Court has issued a significant order asking the state government to scrap the existing version of the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor project. This directive comes after the court noted that only one kilometer of the proposed 111-kilometer expressway has been constructed since the project's inception in 1995.
The court explicitly instructed the government to re-examine the project and take appropriate action for a fresh initiative. This decision emerged from a recent case dealing with compensation disputes for land acquisition.
Origins of the Ambitious BMIC Project
The Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor project was first envisioned during the HD Deve Gowda government in 1995. A consortium of Indian and American firms signed a memorandum of understanding to develop this crucial corridor between the two major Karnataka cities.
After examining the proposal, the government established Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises as a Special Purpose Vehicle to implement the project. The original plan included several ambitious components:
- A 111-kilometer expressway with four lanes expandable to six lanes
- Required peripheral roads alongside the main expressway
- Five new satellite townships, each designed to support one lakh residents
The construction timeline allocated ten years for completion, followed by thirty years of operation during which the company would collect tolls. It is important to distinguish this project from the existing Bengaluru-Mysuru Expressway, which represents a separate National Highways Authority of India initiative.
Court's Scathing Assessment of Project Progress
The Karnataka High Court delivered a harsh critique of the project's implementation in its recent order. The judges noted that only one kilometer of the main expressway has been constructed despite three decades having passed since the project's conception.
While Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise built 47 kilometers of peripheral roads from which it collects toll revenue, the court emphasized that the core infrastructure meant to decongest Bengaluru and develop new townships has remained largely on paper.
The court highlighted how Bengaluru has suffered increasing congestion during these years while the project remained effectively dormant. This observation contributed to the recommendation to scrap the current version and start fresh.
Litigation Burden and Land Acquisition Issues
The BMIC project has generated substantial legal challenges over the years. The court noted that approximately 2,000 cases related to the project have been filed, with six eventually reaching the Supreme Court.
One particularly telling case involved a one-acre land parcel marked for acquisition that remained in limbo for over 17 years. The landowner received neither possession nor compensation during this period. The court ruled in favor of the landowner and set aside the acquisition, describing the situation as one of extraordinary dormancy.
Supreme Court Precedent and Future Implications
The Supreme Court previously addressed the BMIC project in an earlier ruling. The apex court established that land acquired specifically for this project could only be used for its implementation. Furthermore, project proponents could not unilaterally develop the land in ways not specified in the Framework Agreement.
These Supreme Court stipulations create uncertainty about whether the project can be restarted entirely fresh. Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has previously commented on this matter, noting that the Supreme Court's direction requires executing the project as originally conceived and implementing the Framework Agreement in letter and spirit.
Shivakumar indicated that even if he wanted to abandon the project, the court's order prevents such action. This creates a complex legal landscape for the government as it considers the High Court's recommendation to scrap and restart the infrastructure corridor initiative.
The Karnataka government now faces the challenging task of navigating between the High Court's scrapping recommendation and the Supreme Court's earlier directives regarding project implementation. This situation highlights the difficulties that can arise when ambitious infrastructure projects face prolonged delays and legal complications.
