How Karnataka’s Parks and BMLTA amendments may shield Tunnel Road project | Explained

The groups opposing the Tunnel Road project say that at the core of the two new amendments is an agenda to shield the project, against which three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are currently being heard in court.

Updated - August 27, 2026 07:43 pm IST - Bengaluru

The amendment changes the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975, so that the State government can legally take or use a limited portion of land, which is 5%, inside protected government parks and gardens for public infrastructure and public-utility projects. | Photo Credit: MURALI KUMAR K

Story so far: The Karnataka government passed two bills — the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026, and the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2026 (BMLTA) — in the recently concluded Monsoon Session.

Both bills were passed without a single debate as the opposition alliance of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (Secular) was vehemently protesting against the inclusion of scam-accused B. Nagendra in the newly inducted ministers.

The bills are now being viewed in the context of the controversial Tunnel Road project, which is one of Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar’s pet projects. The Parks Bill, in particular, has drawn substantial backlash from the public, civic activists, and environmentalists. In addition, progressive thinkers and Kannada writers have also issued statements urging the government to repeal the amendments. Pressure is now mounting from various sections of society.

The groups opposing the project say that at the core of these amendments is an agenda to shield the Tunnel Road project, against which three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) are currently being heard in court. The PIL petitioners have alleged that the amendments defeat the points raised in the petitions.

What does the new Park amendment seek?

The amendment changes the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975, so that the State government can legally take or use a limited portion of land, which is 5%, inside protected government parks and gardens for public infrastructure and public-utility projects. The 1975 Act was originally designed to protect government parks and gardens from being diverted to other uses.

Section 4 of the 1975 Act restricts the use or alienation of land covered by the Act. However, Section 5 was included to make “specific exceptions.” In the past, all these exceptions have been project-specific permissions written into the law.

For example, the existing Section 5 lists six specific projects, including the use of Indira Gandhi Musical Fountain Park for road widening and Lalbagh for a metro station. Similarly, there have been additions related to Cubbon Park.

So, historically, the section dealt with specific parcels and specific projects.

The Parks Bill, in particular, has drawn substantial backlash from the public, civic activists, and environmentalists. | Photo Credit: Special arrangement

What does the 2026 amendment change?

The present amendment replaces that largely project-specific approach with a general statutory mechanism, under which a committee set up by the government itself will assess the need for alienation.

The present amendment says that the government can use or alienate up to 5% of the total area of a park covered by the Act. “Alienation” can mean sale, lease, gift, exchange, and mortgage. However, there are restrictions on who can receive the land. The amendment says only the following can receive the land: a state government department, a statutory authority, a government company, or a local authority.

So, the amendment will not allow the government to hand over park land to private developers or private companies. This is exactly where activists feel that it is being used to shield the Tunnel Road project.

As a gatekeeping mechanism, the amendment makes it mandatory for a committee headed by an Additional Chief Secretary-level officer, along with officers and domain experts, to make recommendations before the government exercises the power to use 5% of the land.

The committee will make recommendations, and only after considering those recommendations can the State government decide that the proposed use is in “public interest.” What the Bill does not specify, however, is what constitutes “public interest” and who determines whether something is in “public interest.”

Another concern is that the term “public utility” is not clearly defined in the Bill. There are several unanswered questions in the form of loopholes: How is “public interest” defined? How is the area calculated where a park has already lost land? Can multiple projects cumulatively use the entire 5%? What happens to the land if the project is abandoned? Can leased land subsequently be transferred?