NGT Issues Notice on Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Project
ROADS & HIGHWAYS

NGT Issues Notice on Bengaluru Twin Tunnel Project

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Wednesday issued notices in response to a petition filed by Bengaluru Praja Vedike and others, challenging the Bengaluru twin tunnel road project. Petitioners claim the project was “hastily announced” and bypassed mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures.
Notices have been served to the Karnataka Government, Greater Bengaluru Authority, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Ltd (B-SMILE), the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and project consultants.
The 16.74-km twin-tube tunnel, connecting Hebbal to Silk Board, was announced in May 2024 during the Karnataka Government’s budget speech, with an estimated cost of Rs 19 billion. The Cabinet approved the project on 22 May, to be implemented under a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT/BOT) model. A Special Purpose Vehicle, B-SMILE, was created, with Rodic Consultants preparing the detailed project report (DPR) in three months.
Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s project has drawn criticism from urban mobility experts and environmentalists, who call it unscientific and harmful. They argue the tunnel will worsen Bengaluru’s traffic congestion.
Planning and Environmental Concerns
The petition alleges the project was announced without adequate technical assessment or reference to the Comprehensive Mobility Plan 2020. It claims the proposal was “politically driven from inception” and pushed forward despite two failed Expressions of Interest, later “retrofitted into a feasibility study through procedural manoeuvring.”
Critics highlight factual errors, incomplete annexures, and missing studies in the DPR, including geological surveys, hydrological and flood-risk mapping, biodiversity assessments, and tree enumeration. Traffic modelling reportedly excludes major vehicle categories, underestimates emissions, and predicts key junctions will remain heavily congested.
The tunnel is planned to pass through ecologically sensitive and legally protected areas, such as the Peninsular Gneiss formation at Lal Bagh, Hebbal Valley’s stormwater corridor, and areas near the critically polluted Peenya Industrial Area. Petitioners warn these zones face risks of groundwater depletion, soil instability, and increased flooding.
Shift from Public to Private Transport
Independent studies, including research from the Indian Institute of Science, suggest the project will encourage private transport, increase emissions, and exacerbate climate vulnerabilities. The Directorate of Urban Land Transport has confirmed the project conflicts with Bengaluru’s mobility and climate policies, recommending alternative approaches.
One major allegation is that mandatory EIA procedures were bypassed. Petitioners claim public consultations were ignored, and a technicality—tunnels not being explicitly listed under the EIA Notification 2006—was used to evade clearance, echoing practices from the controversial 2017 steel flyover project.
Metro Alternative Proposed
The petition highlights that a Metro corridor along the same route would be a more sustainable, inclusive, and environmentally sound alternative.
The applicants have requested the NGT to declare the project unlawful, quash the tender process, and direct full cancellation to prevent ecological damage, uphold environmental safeguards, and protect the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.
Co-petitioners include Kathyayini Chamaraj, executive trustee at CIVIC, and environmentalist Dattatraya Devare. 

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on Wednesday issued notices in response to a petition filed by Bengaluru Praja Vedike and others, challenging the Bengaluru twin tunnel road project. Petitioners claim the project was “hastily announced” and bypassed mandatory environmental impact assessment procedures.Notices have been served to the Karnataka Government, Greater Bengaluru Authority, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Ltd (B-SMILE), the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and project consultants.The 16.74-km twin-tube tunnel, connecting Hebbal to Silk Board, was announced in May 2024 during the Karnataka Government’s budget speech, with an estimated cost of Rs 19 billion. The Cabinet approved the project on 22 May, to be implemented under a build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT/BOT) model. A Special Purpose Vehicle, B-SMILE, was created, with Rodic Consultants preparing the detailed project report (DPR) in three months.Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s project has drawn criticism from urban mobility experts and environmentalists, who call it unscientific and harmful. They argue the tunnel will worsen Bengaluru’s traffic congestion.Planning and Environmental ConcernsThe petition alleges the project was announced without adequate technical assessment or reference to the Comprehensive Mobility Plan 2020. It claims the proposal was “politically driven from inception” and pushed forward despite two failed Expressions of Interest, later “retrofitted into a feasibility study through procedural manoeuvring.”Critics highlight factual errors, incomplete annexures, and missing studies in the DPR, including geological surveys, hydrological and flood-risk mapping, biodiversity assessments, and tree enumeration. Traffic modelling reportedly excludes major vehicle categories, underestimates emissions, and predicts key junctions will remain heavily congested.The tunnel is planned to pass through ecologically sensitive and legally protected areas, such as the Peninsular Gneiss formation at Lal Bagh, Hebbal Valley’s stormwater corridor, and areas near the critically polluted Peenya Industrial Area. Petitioners warn these zones face risks of groundwater depletion, soil instability, and increased flooding.Shift from Public to Private TransportIndependent studies, including research from the Indian Institute of Science, suggest the project will encourage private transport, increase emissions, and exacerbate climate vulnerabilities. The Directorate of Urban Land Transport has confirmed the project conflicts with Bengaluru’s mobility and climate policies, recommending alternative approaches.One major allegation is that mandatory EIA procedures were bypassed. Petitioners claim public consultations were ignored, and a technicality—tunnels not being explicitly listed under the EIA Notification 2006—was used to evade clearance, echoing practices from the controversial 2017 steel flyover project.Metro Alternative ProposedThe petition highlights that a Metro corridor along the same route would be a more sustainable, inclusive, and environmentally sound alternative.The applicants have requested the NGT to declare the project unlawful, quash the tender process, and direct full cancellation to prevent ecological damage, uphold environmental safeguards, and protect the constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.Co-petitioners include Kathyayini Chamaraj, executive trustee at CIVIC, and environmentalist Dattatraya Devare. 

Related Stories

Gold Stories

Next Story
Resources

Schindler named among Forbes’ World’s Best Employers 2026

Schindler has been named among Forbes’ World’s Best Employers 2026, a global ranking recognising companies for their workplace environments.Compiled by Forbes in partnership with Statista, the ranking is based on independent employee feedback, including whether employees would recommend their organisation to friends and family.The company said the recognition reflected its focus on creating a workplace where employees can develop their expertise and build careers. ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

India needs an export-execution mindset: Vishesh Jain

Interview with Vishesh Jain, Founder & CEO, EximpleWhat gaps in India’s global trade ecosystem led you to build Eximple, and what problem did you see businesses struggling with most?Eximple came out of a problem that all three founders had seen from different choke points in the trade ecosystem. India has millions of MSMEs and manufacturers, and many of them can make products that are genuinely competitive on quality. Yet only a small fraction is able to build meaningful international businesses. In our experience, the gap is usually not manufacturing capability; it is the ability to exe..

Next Story
Building Material

Nuvoco reports 13.5% revenue growth in Q2 FY27

Nuvoco Vistas Corp. Ltd. reported consolidated revenue of Rs 27.9 billion for Q2 FY27, up 13.5% year on year. Cement sales volume rose 9% to 4.7 million tonnes (MMT), while EBITDA increased 11% to Rs 4.11 billion.The company said it began its cement operations in 2014 with a 2.3 MMT per annum (MMTPA) operation at Nimbol. It now aims to reach 35 MMTPA of cement capacity by FY28, nearly 15 times its initial capacity. Its portfolio spans cement, ready-mix concrete and modern building materials.On sustainability and cost efficiency, Nuvoco partnered with CleanMax for a 46.4 MW wind-solar hybrid re..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

SPECIAL OFFER
QR Code