An aerial view of skyline buildings in Bengaluru.
Credit: PTI Photo
The Karnataka government’s decision to exempt small residential buildings from the mandatory Occupancy Certificate (OC) requirement is a disingenuous manoeuvre. Though framed as a humanitarian concession to homeowners, it is in reality a backdoor regularisation that directly contravenes a Supreme Court directive. The ruling clearly laid down that no building should be granted utility connections – such as water and electricity – without a valid OC. The exemption applies to houses built on plots up to 1,200 square feet, a category that covers a significant share of Bengaluru’s houses. The government defends its move by citing difficulties faced by owners of properties on ‘B Khata’ sites, where houses constructed without sanctioned plans could not obtain OCs. But this justification conveniently sidesteps the larger malaise: widespread violations of sanctioned plans even on legally sound plots. The excuse of inadequate staff to inspect thousands of applications is no defence for abdicating the administration’s most basic regulatory responsibility.
What is projected as relief is, on the contrary, setting a dangerous precedent. Bengaluru is already a city scarred by unauthorised constructions. Far from resolving the problem, this exemption legitimises the very disorder that the Supreme Court had sought to curb. Invoking a provision of the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act to bypass judicial intent is a troubling subversion of both law and governance. That some homeowners face genuine hardship is beyond dispute, but systemic dilution of regulatory safeguards cannot be the solution. Blanket exemptions only encourage fresh indiscipline, sending a message that violations will eventually be condoned. This not only erodes accountability but also undermines the principle of planned urban growth on which the city’s future depends.
Equally concerning is the silence on official culpability. The mushrooming of non-compliant buildings is the direct outcome of regulatory collapse, enabled by corruption and political patronage. Where were civic officials when these structures were being constructed? Instead of fixing this rot and taking stringent action against the guilty officers, the government has chosen to reward negligence, punishing the law-abiding while letting the culpable escape unscathed. The Cabinet’s consideration of a wider regularisation scheme to cover bigger plots is reminiscent of Akrama-Sakrama, which was struck down by the court. Such schemes, by legitimising illegality, breed a culture of non-compliance and weaken citizens’ trust in institutions. This exemption may bring short-term relief to many, but its long-term cost could be severe. It signals that violation is a viable path, with the government ready to confer retroactive approval. For a metropolis already reeling under chaotic urbanisation, this is a precedent it can ill afford.