In a significant development, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to the state government concerning the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project. The court asserted that the project has been "killed at the cost of citizens and the environment," and has directed the authorities to undertake a thorough re-examination of the entire initiative.
Court's Stern Directive and Supreme Court Mandate
The bench's strong observations came while hearing matters related to the long-pending and controversial infrastructure project. The High Court emphasized the need for the government to take a fresh, holistic look at the BMIC project, popularly known as the NICE corridor, to address the myriad issues plaguing it.
Central to the court's directive is the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court of India. The apex court has explicitly held that only five designated townships are to be developed as part of the project, and no deviations from this plan by the project proponents are permissible. This ruling is intended to prevent unchecked urban sprawl and ensure the project adheres strictly to its originally sanctioned environmental and developmental framework.
Background of the BMIC Project Controversy
The BMIC project, conceived as a major expressway connecting Bengaluru and Mysuru with associated township development, has been embroiled in legal and public disputes for decades. Allegations of land acquisition irregularities, deviations from the master plan, and environmental concerns have consistently dogged its progress.
The High Court's latest intervention underscores the failure to protect public interest and ecological balance. By stating the project was "killed" at the expense of citizens and the environment, the judiciary highlighted the perceived mismanagement and the urgent need for corrective action. The court's order, dated for compliance, mandates that the state government reassess the project's alignment with the Supreme Court's strict conditions.
Implications and the Path Forward
The court's order has several immediate implications:
- Government Accountability: The state administration is now compelled to conduct a detailed review, potentially revisiting land use, environmental clearances, and township plans.
- Project Proponents' Scope: The private developers involved in the BMIC project are bound by the Supreme Court's limitation to the five specified townships, curtailing any unauthorized expansion.
- Citizen and Environmental Focus: The judgment refocuses the priority on safeguarding the rights of affected citizens and mitigating environmental degradation, which the court felt had been sidelined.
This judicial push aims to bring the massive infrastructure project back on a lawful and sustainable track. It serves as a reminder that large-scale development must strictly adhere to legal frameworks and cannot compromise on core commitments to public welfare and ecological preservation. The ball is now in the government's court to execute a transparent and compliant re-evaluation, as ordered by the High Court.
