Subscribe
Bengaluru’s parks are at the centre of a new political and environmental controversy after the Karnataka legislature passed an amendment allowing portions of government parks and gardens to be used for public infrastructure projects.
More than 200 citizens, resident groups and environmental organisations gathered at Lalbagh on August 27 to form a human chain and demand that the government withdraw the amendment. Their concern is not only about how much parkland can be used, but what the change could mean for the legal protection of Bengaluru’s green spaces.
So, what exactly has Karnataka changed, and why are citizens worried?
What does the amendment allow?
The Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Amendment Bill, 2026, changes the 1975 law that protects government parks and gardens. The amendment allows up to 5% of the total area of a government park or garden to be alienated or used for specified public infrastructure and utility projects. This could include projects undertaken by government departments, statutory authorities, government companies and local bodies.
The provision is not simply about temporarily entering parkland. The amendment allows the land to be transferred through mechanisms including sale, lease, gift, exchange or mortgage, subject to an overall 5% ceiling and scrutiny by a high-level committee.
In simple terms, if a government park is 100 acres, the amendment creates a legal route through which up to five acres could potentially be used for an eligible public project. The government has also said the 5% is an absolute ceiling, and land that may already have been alienated would be counted within that limit rather than added on top of it.
Why is Lalbagh part of the controversy?
The amendment has drawn particular attention in Bengaluru because of the proposed Hebbal-Central Silk Board tunnel road. The project is expected to require land inside Lalbagh. The state government has previously proposed using around six acres temporarily during construction and acquiring around one acre permanently for the project.
This has led environmentalists and opposition leaders to argue that the amendment was brought specifically to overcome legal hurdles surrounding the tunnel road.
The government, however, says the change is meant more broadly to facilitate essential public works. Chief Minister DK Shivakumar has said the provision is intended for works such as road widening and that the government will not allow private players to use parkland.
The timing has nevertheless fuelled suspicion among critics, particularly because the Bill was passed by the legislature on August 24, soon after the Cabinet cleared it. The Assembly passed it without substantive debate amid Opposition protests.
Why are environmentalists opposing even 5%?
The argument from environmental groups is that 5% of a park is not necessarily an insignificant amount. Parks are not just recreational spaces. They help reduce heat, absorb rainwater, support biodiversity and provide people with access to open space in an increasingly built-up city.
A peer-reviewed study that examined 262 urban green spaces in Bengaluru found that these spaces were, on average, 2.23°C cooler than surrounding areas, with their cooling effect extending up to 347 metres beyond their boundaries. This means that cutting out a portion of a park can have effects beyond the exact piece of land that is taken.
Environmentalists also fear the precedent created by the amendment. Former Karnataka forest, ecology and environment secretary AN Yellappa Reddy has asked why the government arrived at the 5% figure and whether it is backed by any scientific assessment. He has warned that what begins as a 5% exception could eventually lead to demands for larger portions of protected parks.
At the August 27 protest, citizens made a similar argument: “Not 5%. Not one inch.”
What are citizens asking for?
The groups that organised the protest have submitted a letter to the Chief Minister seeking withdrawal of the amendment. They are also asking the government to ensure that infrastructure projects first examine alternatives that do not involve existing parks or green spaces.
Their other demands include transparent public consultation and comprehensive assessments of the environmental, social, health and wellbeing impacts of projects that could affect parks. Their larger argument is that parks should be treated as essential urban infrastructure, rather than as vacant government land that can be made available when another infrastructure project needs space.
