SC flags Gurugram’s infrastructure after rains, says Greater Noida planned for 30-40 years

The Supreme Court has cited the contrasting experiences of Gurugram and Greater Noida to highlight the importance of infrastructure planning alongside rising construction density. The court said Gurugram’s system collapses during rains because infrastructure such as drainage and sewage systems has not kept pace, while Greater Noida was planned with the next 30-40 years in mind, PTI reported on Tuesday.

The observations came as the court heard a plea challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to uphold the state government’s Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scheme for Bengaluru.

What the Supreme Court said

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned whether civic infrastructure was being expanded alongside additional construction.

CJI Kant said, "There is no visible improvement or addition to the infrastructure, basic infrastructure of the township. It's not that new roads have been constructed, new sewer lines have been provided, new bus flyovers have been multiplied, or all these things.

"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."

Don't Miss: Asian Games 2026: Former Uber driver Salman Khan & ex-handball player Satnam Singh win India's first men's double sculls medal

The bench contrasted Gurugram with Greater Noida, with the CJI observing that "in Greater Noida, there is no such problem because it has been planned keeping in mind the next 30-40 years."

Why Bengaluru's Premium FAR is under scrutiny

The case concerns the Premium FAR scheme, which allows property owners to purchase additional construction rights beyond the ordinarily permissible FAR by paying prescribed premium charges. FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to the size of the plot on which it is built.

Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Citizens Action Forum, argued that road width had effectively become the main criterion for granting premium FAR. He said this could allow substantial additional construction without adequately considering Bengaluru’s existing pressure on parking, water, electricity and other infrastructure.

Justice Bagchi also pointed to Bengaluru’s traffic problems, saying the city has a "traffic nightmare".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the overall additional FAR remains capped at 0.6 and that existing setback and parking requirements continue to apply. He said developers cannot purchase additional FAR without meeting parking and other regulatory requirements. He also said the money collected under the scheme goes into a dedicated fund for civic infrastructure.

Must Read: UPI needs greater investment, resilience as ecosystem costs rise: NPCI CEO Dilip Asbe

SC seeks response from Bengaluru authorities

The petitioner also argued that the new scheme could be used to regularise illegal construction, drawing a comparison with Karnataka’s earlier Akrama-Sakrama scheme.

Mehta told the bench that no unauthorised construction governed by the Akrama-Sakrama scheme would be regularised under the new Premium FAR scheme.

"It has nothing to do with that. Kindly record my statement. It is completely different. You can also pass directions to this effect," Mehta said.

The Supreme Court issued notice on the plea and asked Bengaluru authorities to file their response within four weeks.

The Karnataka High Court had on June 15 upheld the constitutional validity of the Premium FAR scheme under Section 18-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It held that the scheme did not violate Articles 14, 21 or 300A of the Constitution.