The Bengaluru twin tunnel road project is an ambitious Rs 2,215 crore, urban mobility initiative comprising proposed North–South (Hebbal–Silk Board, 16.74 km) and East–West (KR Puram–Nayandahalli) underground express corridors, with Phase I focusing on the North–South route. The total concession period has been set at 34 years, including a 50-month construction timeline for each package.
Envisioned by D K Shivakumar in 2024 and approved by the State Cabinet on 22 May 2025, the project aims to improve cross-city connectivity, reduce travel times, and ease congestion through a high-speed underground roadway network with strategically located entry and exit ramps, and is proposed to be implemented under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model through the Special Purpose Vehicle B-SMILE.
Resistance to the project emerged soon after its conception and intensified following the publication of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) by Rodic Consultants, which critics argued was rushed, having been completed in under three months, and lacking adequate technical assessment. These concerns sparked widespread online activism, with civic activists and urban planners launching a campaign in December 2024 against the project's cost, car-centric approach, and lack of public consultation. In June 2025, a citizen-led petition signed by over 2,500 people urged the Karnataka government to abandon the tunnel road project and prioritise investments in public transport, including buses, Metro expansion, and suburban rail.
In September 2025, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed before the Karnataka High Court by Adikesavalu Ravindra and others challenging the Bengaluru twin tunnel road project, following which the court issued notices to the Government of Karnataka, the Greater Bengaluru Authority, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority and other respondents. The petition questioned the project's economic viability, social and environmental impacts, and alleged factual inaccuracies in the feasibility report and Detailed Project Report.
On 25 October 2025, actor Prakash Belawadi filed a PIL before the Karnataka High Court, with BJP MP Tejasvi Surya appearing as counsel, challenging the tunnel alignment through Lalbagh Botanical Garden on the grounds that it could affect approximately 6.5 acres of Lalbagh and threaten the protected Lalbagh Rock geological monument. They alleged that the project had proceeded without an Environmental Impact Assessment or consultation with the Bengaluru Metropolitan Land Transport Authority.
On 10 September 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued notices to the Government of Karnataka, Greater Bengaluru Authority, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, B-SMILE, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and the project consultants in response to a petition filed by Bengaluru Praja Vedike and others challenging the project over deficiencies in the Detailed Project Report and the absence of key environmental studies. The petition argued that the project advanced without an Environmental Impact Assessment or public consultation, with authorities interpreting the 2006 EIA Notification in a manner that exempted road tunnels from environmental clearance requirements.
In November 2025, two protests were held against the proposed tunnel road project at Lalbagh: a BJP-led signature campaign and silent protest on 2 November raising environmental and financial concerns, followed by a flash protest on 15 November by AISA, Fridays For Future Karnataka, and other groups, who argued that the PPP/BOOT-based project prioritises private profits, excludes two-wheeler users, and could worsen traffic congestion, as highlighted in the October 2025 Department of Urban Land Transport (DULT) report.
On 16 May 2026, citizens, students, and civil society groups mobilised opposition to the proposed tunnel road project by travelling along the planned Hebbal-Silk Board alignment, gathering at the GBA office, and presenting a representation supported by over 1,000 signatures demanding that the project be withdrawn.
As of May 2026, Adani Group, the lowest bidder for the project, had commenced ground surveys and geotechnical investigations along the proposed corridor, while the concession award remained subject to Karnataka Cabinet approval amid ongoing political, financial, legal, and environmental scrutiny.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Complaint against procedural violations
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Opposition to car-centric infrastructure and demand for sustainable public transport-oriented urban planning.
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Common and Private
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Project underway despite protests
Original Project Deadline
2029
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Yes
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Government or community-regulated urban commons, Ecosystem/Environmental Services
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Data Unavailable
Source/Reference
Given that the reported Adani Group bid is higher than government estimates, it requires cabinet clearance if it must move forward. But before that it may have to cross taller political hurdles. In addition, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had got clearance from the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (KTCDA) to divert 3.45 acre of Hebbal Lake land for the project but it violates the Supreme Court orders stating that all wetland and water bodies must be protected and not diverted for any other purposes. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2026/Oct/01/bengaluru-dks-pet-twin-tunnel-project-faces-legal-hurdle-over-wetland <https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/karnataka-adani-emerges-front-runner-for-tunnel-road-project-leaving-congress-in-tight-spot/articleshow/126145396.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst>
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
17698
Type of investment:
Cost of Project
Year of Estimation
2025
Has the Conflict Ended?
No
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Environmental Law, Environmental Law, Other, Case Laws, Other
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-consultation with stakeholders
Violation of environmental laws
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Pending
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Yes
Name of the adjudicatory body
National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone Bench, Chennai); W.P. No. 31626/2025 connected with W.P. 28664/2025 (Karnataka HC)
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Karnataka High Court
Case Number
OA No. 182/2025 (SZ) National Green Tribunal (Southern Zone Bench, Chennai)
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Department of Urban Development, Karnataka, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP),
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Limited (B-SMILE)
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
No
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Adani Enterprises Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
No
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Save Bangalore Committee (SBC); Civic Bengaluru; Bengaluru Bus Prayanikara Vedike (BBPV); Bengaluru Praja Vedike; Greenpeace India; Residents living along the Hebbal–Silk Board tunnel corridor;
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Asmita Sutar is an Architect and Urban Planner passionate about shaping sustainable communities through research and grassroots engagement. She also serves as an Assistant Professor in Urban and Regional Planning, bringing academic insight to her multidisciplinaryapproach.
As a State Researcher from Karnataka, Asmita investigates land and planning issues through the lenses of equity, governance, and community rights, with a focus on bridging the gap between policy and lived realities in India’s urban and rural landscapes.
