Chronic Issue Of “Garbage Blackspots”: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions For Integrated Technology-Driven Solid Waste Management Governance Framework

The Karnataka High Court has issued general directions for the establishment of an integrated technology-driven solid waste management governance framework for Bengaluru.

The Court was deciding a Writ Petition preferred by Municipal Solid Waste Management contractors.

A Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “This Court takes judicial notice of the persistent and widespread failure of the Respondent authorities to effectively implement the statutory framework governing municipal solid waste management. The city of Bengaluru, despite its stature as a global metropolis, is plagued by the chronic issue of “garbage blackspots,” which are areas of recurrent, unauthorised waste dumping that pose a significant and ongoing threat to public health and the urban environment. This Court is of the considered opinion that the management of solid waste is not merely a statutory duty of the municipal corporations but a profound constitutional obligation, inextricably linked to the fundamental Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench emphasised that the right to a clean, hygienic, and dignified environment is not a privilege to be bestowed but a right to be enforced.

Senior Advocate Udaya Holla represented the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate Shashi Kiran Shetty, HCGP Anukanksha Kalkari, and Advocate S.H. Prashanth Chandra represented the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners-Municipal Solid Waste Management contractors claimed to be providing services to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in various capacities over the years, including primary collection of segregated wet waste, sanitary waste and street sweeping waste, as well as secondary transportation of segregated wet and street sweeping waste in various wards of Bangalore city. They were aggrieved by the request for proposals or invitation for tender in respect of 33 packages issued by the Respondents.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The contention placed by Sri.Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No.2 and 4 insofar as efficiency is concerned, and the same being in the interest of the general public, being the prerogative of the tender issuing authority, I am of the considered opinion that the same would be required to be accepted. Moreso, when ex facise the same is reasonable and logical inasmuch as Respondents No.2 and 4 can more effectively monitor the Solid Waste Disposal System.”

The Court held that the change of the tender from ward-wise to multiple wards cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable given the circumstances which have been taken into account by the tender issuing authority.

“Merely because a tender was being issued for a smaller quantity would not require the tender to continue to be issued for a smaller quantum or quantity with the change in times and for better management of the tenders, the tender issuing authority would be entitled to make such changes as are required, which has been done in the present case to better achieve Solid Waste Disposal”, it noted.

The Court was of the view that the change in the financial and/or technical requirement will not come in the way of the Petitioners coming together to submit their bid as a consortium, and therefore, the same would not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“In view of my answers to points No.1 and 2 above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the nature of the tender or its process requiring interference of the hands of this Court”, it added.

General Directions

The Court remarked that there is a critical and urgent need for a proactive, systemic, and technologically advanced solution to a problem that has been allowed to fester for far too long.

To give full effect to the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and to ensure that the citizens of Bengaluru are provided with an efficient, transparent, and accountable system of solid waste management, the Court issued the following directions –

• The Chief Commissioner of the Greater Bangalore Authority, along with the Zonal Commissioners of each of the Corporations coming under the GBA, with the assistance of the Principal Secretary, e-Governance Department, Government of Karnataka, shall forthwith commence the design, development, and implementation of a single, unified, and integrated digital platform for Solid Waste Management for the city of Bengaluru.

• The CCTV surveillance network shall function as a primary data-gathering and enforcement sensor network, feeding critical, real-time information directly into the analytical and operational modules of the unified digital platform.

• A “Nodal Oversight and Committee for SWM Surveillance" (hereinafter "the Committee") shall be constituted by the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, within a period of fifteen (15) days.

• The Committee shall be the single-point authority responsible for the comprehensive planning, procurement, installation, and operational oversight of the entire integrated SWM technology project.

• Architecture of the Integrated Digital SWM Platform: The unified digital platform shall be designed with a multi-tiered architecture to cater to the specific needs of all stakeholders, presenting distinct interfaces for the public, for operational staff, and for administrative oversight.

• The Operational Command and Control Dashboard: This tier shall be designed for SWM contractors, vehicle operators, and field supervisors to ensure efficient execution and monitoring of on-ground tasks.

• The Administrative and Strategic Oversight Dashboard: This strategic-level interface is for BBMP officials and policymakers for city-wide performance monitoring, data analytics, and planning.

• Governance by API and Data-Driven Accountability: The architecture of this platform is intended to institute a fundamental shift in municipal governance, moving away from manual, often unreliable, paper-based reporting towards a system where performance is measured by immutable digital data streams.

• Technological Mandates: GPS/AVL and Weighbridge Integration

• Comprehensive Mapping and Phased Rollout

• Technical Specifications and Installation Standards

• Governance Protocol for System Operations and Data Management (The SOP)

• Evidence-Based Enforcement Protocol

• Standardised Schedule of Penalties

• Grievance Redressal Mechanism

• The Nodal Oversight and Implementation Committee for SWM Surveillance shall prepare and, through its Member Secretary, submit a Detailed Project Report (DPR) in line with the aforesaid directions to the Court within a period of six weeks.

Conclusion

The Court clarified that it shall continue to monitor the implementation of the Order by way of a continuing mandamus.

“The matter is to be listed for review before this bench every four months to ensure strict and timely compliance with all directives issued herein. … This Order is passed in the paramount interest of justice and for the protection of the environment and public health, which are integral to the fundamental Right to life of every citizen. All respondent authorities are directed to ensure strict and unwavering compliance with the letter and spirit of this Order”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court listed the case for reporting compliance after six weeks.

Cause Title- B.S. Kiran Kumar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:44337)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Udaya Holla and Advocate Maya Holla.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Shashi Kiran Shetty, HCGP Anukanksha Kalkari, Advocates S.H. Prashanth Chandra, and Namitha Mahesh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment