Union Minister Shobha Karandlaje writes to Karnataka Governor, seeks withholding of assent to Parks Amendment Bill

BENGALURU: Union Minister of State for Labour & Employment and Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Shobha Karandlaje has written to Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot urging him to withhold assent to the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026.

In her representation, Karandlaje said the bill fundamentally alters the protective character of the Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) Act, 1975, and creates a sweeping statutory mechanism for alienation of public parks and gardens for purposes other than their preservation.

The Union Minister flagged the proposed insertion of sub-section (2) to Section 5 as the most alarming feature. The clause empowers the State Government, upon recommendation of a High-Level Committee constituted by itself, to alienate land or buildings situated within a park or garden by way of sale, lease, gift, exchange, mortgage or otherwise, or permit their use, up to an area not exceeding five per cent of the total area of such park.

The beneficiaries contemplated include Departments of the State Government, Statutory Authorities, Government Companies and Local Authorities. “What is being presented as a limited exception is, in effect, a substantial dilution of the statutory protection historically afforded to public green spaces,” she wrote.

Karandlaje argued that the State Government is a custodian and trustee of public parks, not their commercial proprietor, and custodial power cannot ordinarily be converted into an unrestricted proprietary power to sell, lease or mortgage protected green spaces. She also objected to the Bill’s attempt to statutorily declare that utilisation of park land for a “public infrastructure” or “public utility” project shall be considered as being in furtherance of public interest.

“Such legislative deeming cannot be allowed to become a convenient substitute for demonstrating actual public necessity. The Government cannot simply label a project as infrastructure and thereby presume that destruction or diversion of a protected green space is in public interest,” the letter stated, adding that public interest requires assessment of necessity, proportionality, environmental consequences and availability of alternative sites.

The Minister said five per cent is not an insignificant figure when applied to large parks throughout Karnataka. Once a general statutory right to alienate is created, what was previously exceptional risks becoming routine administrative action.

“A park cannot be restored merely by monetary compensation after it has been fragmented, concretised or permanently diverted. Ecological assets accumulated over decades cannot be recreated at the convenience of the State,” she noted.

She pointed out that the Bill’s own Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly acknowledges the intention to enable alienation up to five per cent, and therefore apprehension regarding alienation is not hypothetical but arises from the express language of the legislation itself.

The letter also raised concerns that the statutory relaxation may open the door to vested commercial and real-estate interests, as public infrastructure could become a convenient legal route through which protected green spaces are gradually brought into construction, development and eventual commercial exploitation.

Karandlaje criticised the haste and manner in which the Bill was passed without meaningful debate and adequate legislative deliberation, without consultation with environmental and urban-planning experts and without public participation.

She said the proposed High-Level Committee, to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Additional Chief Secretary and comprising officers and experts as the Government considers appropriate, effectively places initiation, evaluation and final decision within an executive framework without any statutory requirement for public consultation or independent environmental scrutiny.

Stating that public parks are indispensable ecological infrastructure that protect biodiversity, mitigate urban heat, improve air quality, facilitate groundwater recharge and contribute to quality of life, she said the State’s obligation must be to increase and preserve green cover, not enact statutory devices for its depletion.

“The Bill, in its present form, represents an alarming departure from the doctrine that public authorities hold environmentally significant public assets in trust for the community. Development cannot mean progressively surrendering irreplaceable public assets merely because those assets happen to be under governmental control,” she said.

Urging the Governor to act as “constitutional sentinel of the larger public interest,” Karandlaje requested rigorous scrutiny of the Bill and to withhold assent in its present form, stating that infrastructure must be planned around protected public assets rather than by sacrificing them.

“This is not a dispute between development and environmental protection. Administrative convenience can never become sufficient justification for permanently diminishing the environmental inheritance of future generations,” she concluded. (ANI)