25/08/2026
Why the Karnataka Parks Bill deserves a second look
The Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026 has passed Cabinet with relatively little public debate. It permits up to 5% of any park or garden, including Cubbon Park and Lalbagh, to be alienated through sale, lease, gift, exchange or mortgage, for public utility projects.
Is 5% a small number? On paper, yes. In practice, perhaps not.
Points worth mulling over:
▪︎Five percent sounds administrative until you apply it. On Lalbagh, that is upward of 10 acres. On Cubbon Park, more still. Numbers presented as small are only small relative to something, and relative to what a park actually does for a city, this is not.
▪︎Bengaluru's infrastructure needs are real, and no one disputes that roads, metro lines and utilities matter. The Bill also builds in a safeguard: a high-level committee to evaluate proposed use before it proceeds, restricted to public authorities for public purposes. These provisions were not included carelessly, and it is only fair to say so.
▪︎A committee can function well and still be operating inside a framework that has already shifted. Once a statutory right to alienate exists, it tends to persist beyond the government that created it. The question is not only how carefully this exception is used, but what it becomes once it is no longer treated as exceptional.
▪︎Let’s not forget what a park is already doing. A park is not land in waiting. It is already at work for air quality, for biodiversity, for the quieter kind of relief a dense city needs. These are easy to underweigh because none of it shows up on a balance sheet.
▪︎Infrastructure decisions can often be revisited. This one largely cannot. Once green space is repurposed, it does not return to what it was, regardless of how the compensation or planning is structured. In one word, irreversible
▪︎Every generation makes a choice about what it protects for the next one. This Bill asks the current generation to make that call on a fairly permanent basis, on behalf of people who have no voice in the decision yet.
We should build better infrastructure around our parks wherever possible and not by gradually consuming them.
None of this is an argument against progress. It is an argument for building that progress around what we already have, rather than through it.
Protect responsibly