The Supreme Court has flagged Gurugram’s recurring infrastructure failures during heavy rains as a warning against allowing cities to grow vertically without simultaneously expanding roads, drainage and sewage networks, while contrasting the Millennium City with what it described as the better-planned Greater Noida. The observations came while the court was examining a challenge to Karnataka’s Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme, which allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights beyond the ordinarily permissible limit.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana questioned whether permitting greater construction density without corresponding improvements in basic infrastructure could leave cities increasingly vulnerable. The court issued notice on a petition filed by Citizens Action Forum challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that had upheld the constitutional validity of the Premium FAR policy, while making it clear that additional FAR could not be used to regularise illegal construction.
‘System collapses’
During the hearing, the Chief Justice pointed to Gurugram as an example of the consequences of allowing construction to expand without adequate investment in supporting civic infrastructure. “We have seen in Gurugram how this system collapses if any natural calamity comes. Because, without adding to this infrastructure, you are burdening the size of the plot with multiple storeys,” the CJI observed.
The Bench questioned whether roads, sewer lines and other essential infrastructure had expanded in proportion to increasing construction. It noted that merely allowing additional floors or built-up space could place a significantly larger burden on existing civic systems unless planning authorities simultaneously created the infrastructure necessary to support the additional population and development.
The remarks came against the backdrop of recurring waterlogging in Gurugram during spells of heavy rain, which has repeatedly disrupted traffic and daily life in parts of the city. The Haryana Human Rights Commission had also recently described recurring waterlogging and civic disruption in Gurugram as a predictable failure of urban planning and directed a technical audit of the drainage network.
Greater Noida draws praise
The Supreme Court contrasted Gurugram’s experience with Greater Noida, observing that the latter had been developed with a longer planning horizon. The Bench said Greater Noida did not face the same problem because its planning had taken into account requirements for the next 30 to 40 years, highlighting the importance of creating infrastructure before permitting intensive development.
The comparison formed part of the court’s broader concern over whether urban planning policies were increasingly being shaped by the immediate value of additional construction rather than the long-term carrying capacity of cities. With greater FAR allowing more floor space to be constructed on the same plot, the Bench indicated that the consequences for roads, sewage, drainage and other public infrastructure could not be considered separately from decisions allowing additional development.
Karnataka scheme under scrutiny
The case before the court concerns Karnataka’s Premium FAR scheme, under which developers and property owners can purchase additional building rights by paying prescribed premium charges. FAR represents the ratio between the total floor area of a building and the size of the plot on which it stands, meaning a higher FAR generally permits greater built-up space on the same parcel of land.
The petitioners have challenged a June 15 Karnataka High Court judgment that upheld the constitutional validity of the policy. They have argued, among other issues, that allowing additional construction could increase pressure on Bengaluru’s already strained civic infrastructure and raised concerns over the relationship between Premium FAR and Transferable Development Rights.
The High Court had rejected challenges to the scheme and held that it could not be considered unconstitutional merely because a government policy affected property values. The Supreme Court has now sought a response from the authorities, bringing the larger implications of increasing urban construction density under scrutiny.
No route to legalise illegal buildings
The Supreme Court also made it clear during the hearing that the availability of additional FAR could not become a mechanism for regularising unauthorised construction. The clarification assumes significance amid concerns raised by the petitioners over whether additional development rights could eventually benefit buildings or portions of buildings constructed without the required approvals.
The case has consequently expanded beyond a dispute over construction rights to a wider examination of how Indian cities accommodate rapid vertical growth. By invoking the contrasting examples of Gurugram and Greater Noida, the court placed infrastructure capacity at the centre of the debate, questioning whether cities can sustainably accommodate additional buildings and residents when basic civic networks have not expanded at the same pace.