<p>Bengaluru’s never-ending pothole menace continues to be in the spotlight. Chief Minister of Karnataka Siddaramaiah had set October 31 as the deadline for contractors to fill the potholes in the city. However, tragic road incidents continue to haunt the city, as lives are lost and work remains to be done. These are not freak accidents; these ‘death traps’ are symptoms of a chronic governance failure. Does it always take a death for the government to act?</p>.<p>Court directions to municipal corporations on potholes are nothing new. The same issue is flagged, the same orders are passed, and yet, the same violations continue. In Bengaluru, this has been a regular cycle. The monsoons expose the abysmal quality of road infrastructure and institutional apathy. The Karnataka High Court has, time and again, underscored that the maintenance of roads is not merely an administrative function of the BBMP, but a legal and constitutional obligation.</p>.<p>In multiple cases, the High Court has held the BBMP responsible for accidents caused by potholes. The Court went a step further – stating that citizens can claim compensation for deaths or injuries caused by poorly maintained roads, rejecting BBMP’s defence of “sovereign immunity”. When the BBMP approached the Supreme Court claiming that granting compensation would result in a financial burden, the Court came down heavily on the corporation, stating that broken footpaths and potholes on the streets expose citizens to danger, which is a violation of their right to live a meaningful and dignified life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Karnataka HC recently directed the BBMP to submit an affidavit disclosing its latest position in terms of the steps taken to deal with the issue of potholes.</p>.<p>Although the courts have ordered compensation in individual cases, there is still no statutory framework that guarantees compensation for pothole-related deaths or injuries. The BBMP once stated intent to make claiming compensation “easier,” but no sustained system exists. Without clear guidelines or a statutory fund, compensation remains uncertain, arbitrary, and inaccessible.</p>.<p>Under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, municipal corporations have a statutory obligation to construct, maintain, alter, and improve roads and footpaths. For Bengaluru, the same obligation can be found in the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. This statutory obligation creates a corresponding right in favour of citizens. The GBA was constituted as the apex metropolitan body for the Greater Bengaluru region, overseeing multiple city corporations. The authority was envisioned as a supervisory, planning, and coordinating body across the corporations. Who is then responsible for fixing the potholes? The GBA? The corporation? Or both? In fact, the formation of the GBA has only enlarged the already existing legal vacuum.</p>.<p><strong>A new code of responsibility</strong></p>.<p>In December 2019, the BBMP announced a compensation of up to Rs 3 lakh to victims of serious accidents caused by potholes and Rs 15,000 for minor injuries. There is not much clarity on the process and manner to seek such compensation.</p>.<p>The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, needs to be amended to ensure operational accountability for road maintenance and safety. The government should establish a dedicated compensation scheme for victims of accidents caused by potholes with a clear and time-bound procedure to secure claims. The GBA may create a Compensation Fund, which could draw from a cess levied on road works and related infrastructure projects.</p>.<p>The corporations should be empowered to initiate action against officials for non-compliance or violations of road maintenance obligations. To ensure accountability, the relevant officials must be mandated to submit periodic reports detailing the number of potholes identified, repaired, and fixed within specified timelines.</p>.<p>Effective coordination between different agencies undertaking road restoration or excavation work is also essential. The GBA may be granted statutory powers under the Act to levy penalties on agencies or contractors that fail to restore roads to their original condition. At the local level, ward committees should be tasked with conducting regular inspections of roads to identify areas requiring repair. They may be mandated to submit monthly reports on the condition of roads within their jurisdiction to the respective Corporation Commissioner, ensuring prompt remedial action.</p>.<p>The GBA can collaborate with hospitals in the city to map accident spots and have victims of bad roads and potholes identify vulnerable areas. Bengaluru must reclaim its streets – not just from traffic but from apathy – by adopting a clear, codified system of responsibility and redress.</p>.<p><em>(The writer leads the Karnataka team of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. She works on urban governance, education, and data and technology regulations)</em></p> <p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>Bengaluru’s never-ending pothole menace continues to be in the spotlight. Chief Minister of Karnataka Siddaramaiah had set October 31 as the deadline for contractors to fill the potholes in the city. However, tragic road incidents continue to haunt the city, as lives are lost and work remains to be done. These are not freak accidents; these ‘death traps’ are symptoms of a chronic governance failure. Does it always take a death for the government to act?</p>.<p>Court directions to municipal corporations on potholes are nothing new. The same issue is flagged, the same orders are passed, and yet, the same violations continue. In Bengaluru, this has been a regular cycle. The monsoons expose the abysmal quality of road infrastructure and institutional apathy. The Karnataka High Court has, time and again, underscored that the maintenance of roads is not merely an administrative function of the BBMP, but a legal and constitutional obligation.</p>.<p>In multiple cases, the High Court has held the BBMP responsible for accidents caused by potholes. The Court went a step further – stating that citizens can claim compensation for deaths or injuries caused by poorly maintained roads, rejecting BBMP’s defence of “sovereign immunity”. When the BBMP approached the Supreme Court claiming that granting compensation would result in a financial burden, the Court came down heavily on the corporation, stating that broken footpaths and potholes on the streets expose citizens to danger, which is a violation of their right to live a meaningful and dignified life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Karnataka HC recently directed the BBMP to submit an affidavit disclosing its latest position in terms of the steps taken to deal with the issue of potholes.</p>.<p>Although the courts have ordered compensation in individual cases, there is still no statutory framework that guarantees compensation for pothole-related deaths or injuries. The BBMP once stated intent to make claiming compensation “easier,” but no sustained system exists. Without clear guidelines or a statutory fund, compensation remains uncertain, arbitrary, and inaccessible.</p>.<p>Under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, municipal corporations have a statutory obligation to construct, maintain, alter, and improve roads and footpaths. For Bengaluru, the same obligation can be found in the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. This statutory obligation creates a corresponding right in favour of citizens. The GBA was constituted as the apex metropolitan body for the Greater Bengaluru region, overseeing multiple city corporations. The authority was envisioned as a supervisory, planning, and coordinating body across the corporations. Who is then responsible for fixing the potholes? The GBA? The corporation? Or both? In fact, the formation of the GBA has only enlarged the already existing legal vacuum.</p>.<p><strong>A new code of responsibility</strong></p>.<p>In December 2019, the BBMP announced a compensation of up to Rs 3 lakh to victims of serious accidents caused by potholes and Rs 15,000 for minor injuries. There is not much clarity on the process and manner to seek such compensation.</p>.<p>The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024, needs to be amended to ensure operational accountability for road maintenance and safety. The government should establish a dedicated compensation scheme for victims of accidents caused by potholes with a clear and time-bound procedure to secure claims. The GBA may create a Compensation Fund, which could draw from a cess levied on road works and related infrastructure projects.</p>.<p>The corporations should be empowered to initiate action against officials for non-compliance or violations of road maintenance obligations. To ensure accountability, the relevant officials must be mandated to submit periodic reports detailing the number of potholes identified, repaired, and fixed within specified timelines.</p>.<p>Effective coordination between different agencies undertaking road restoration or excavation work is also essential. The GBA may be granted statutory powers under the Act to levy penalties on agencies or contractors that fail to restore roads to their original condition. At the local level, ward committees should be tasked with conducting regular inspections of roads to identify areas requiring repair. They may be mandated to submit monthly reports on the condition of roads within their jurisdiction to the respective Corporation Commissioner, ensuring prompt remedial action.</p>.<p>The GBA can collaborate with hospitals in the city to map accident spots and have victims of bad roads and potholes identify vulnerable areas. Bengaluru must reclaim its streets – not just from traffic but from apathy – by adopting a clear, codified system of responsibility and redress.</p>.<p><em>(The writer leads the Karnataka team of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. She works on urban governance, education, and data and technology regulations)</em></p> <p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
