<p class="bodytext">Few infrastructure projects in Karnataka have promised as much – and delivered as little – as the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC). Conceived in the mid-1990s as a solution to Bengaluru’s congestion, the project has entered another uncertain phase after the Karnataka High Court directed the scrapping of the original agreement and its replacement with a more contemporary proposal. Rather than resolving a long-standing impasse, the well-intentioned order has added a layer of legal and administrative complexity. The court’s reasoning rests on the doctrine of contractual frustration. Nearly 25 years after the Framework Agreement (FWA) was signed in 1997, barely one kilometre of the proposed 110-kilometre expressway was constructed. The court ruled that the project, as originally conceived, had lost its practical relevance, noting that the city’s population had grown from around 70 lakh to over 1.6 crore.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, this position sits uneasily with the Supreme Court’s stance. In its 2006 judgment in State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation, the apex court upheld the validity of the FWA, rejected allegations of fraud and excess land acquisition, and directed the state to implement the project strictly as envisaged. Subsequent orders, including clarifications in 2021, reiterated that the agreement could neither be diluted nor deviated from, asserting that contractual obligations could not be set aside due to political or administrative discomfort. Adding to the controversy are the findings of the 2016 legislative committee, which alleged serious irregularities, ranging from excess land acquisition and financial impropriety to missing government files and illegal mining. Central to the ongoing unease is the fact that the project proponent continues to hold large tracts of land acquired for the corridor and townships, even as the core expressway remains largely unbuilt. The High Court noted that while tolls are being collected on peripheral roads, the expressway exists largely on paper, leaving the proponent in possession of a substantial land bank without commensurate project delivery. These land holdings were intended not only for the expressway but also for a series of integrated townships that remain unimplemented.</p>.Appeal against Murugha Sharana based on legal opinion: G Parameshwara.<p class="bodytext">Successive governments have struggled to act on legislative findings, constrained by Supreme Court orders and the binding nature of the FWA. The way forward now demands judicial coherence. Either the Supreme Court must reassess its earlier directions in light of changed circumstances, or the project must be scrapped if it no longer serves its purpose. This continued paralysis, where land remains locked, courts remain burdened, and citizens remain stuck in traffic, awaiting a corridor that may never materialise, cannot continue indefinitely.</p>
<p class="bodytext">Few infrastructure projects in Karnataka have promised as much – and delivered as little – as the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC). Conceived in the mid-1990s as a solution to Bengaluru’s congestion, the project has entered another uncertain phase after the Karnataka High Court directed the scrapping of the original agreement and its replacement with a more contemporary proposal. Rather than resolving a long-standing impasse, the well-intentioned order has added a layer of legal and administrative complexity. The court’s reasoning rests on the doctrine of contractual frustration. Nearly 25 years after the Framework Agreement (FWA) was signed in 1997, barely one kilometre of the proposed 110-kilometre expressway was constructed. The court ruled that the project, as originally conceived, had lost its practical relevance, noting that the city’s population had grown from around 70 lakh to over 1.6 crore.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, this position sits uneasily with the Supreme Court’s stance. In its 2006 judgment in State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation, the apex court upheld the validity of the FWA, rejected allegations of fraud and excess land acquisition, and directed the state to implement the project strictly as envisaged. Subsequent orders, including clarifications in 2021, reiterated that the agreement could neither be diluted nor deviated from, asserting that contractual obligations could not be set aside due to political or administrative discomfort. Adding to the controversy are the findings of the 2016 legislative committee, which alleged serious irregularities, ranging from excess land acquisition and financial impropriety to missing government files and illegal mining. Central to the ongoing unease is the fact that the project proponent continues to hold large tracts of land acquired for the corridor and townships, even as the core expressway remains largely unbuilt. The High Court noted that while tolls are being collected on peripheral roads, the expressway exists largely on paper, leaving the proponent in possession of a substantial land bank without commensurate project delivery. These land holdings were intended not only for the expressway but also for a series of integrated townships that remain unimplemented.</p>.Appeal against Murugha Sharana based on legal opinion: G Parameshwara.<p class="bodytext">Successive governments have struggled to act on legislative findings, constrained by Supreme Court orders and the binding nature of the FWA. The way forward now demands judicial coherence. Either the Supreme Court must reassess its earlier directions in light of changed circumstances, or the project must be scrapped if it no longer serves its purpose. This continued paralysis, where land remains locked, courts remain burdened, and citizens remain stuck in traffic, awaiting a corridor that may never materialise, cannot continue indefinitely.</p>
