Every Bengaluru resident pays taxes in one form or another. Income tax, Goods and Services Tax (GST), property tax, motor vehicle tax, fuel taxes, registration charges, stamp duty and several indirect taxes collectively contribute thousands of crores of rupees to the public exchequer every year. Yet, despite these contributions, Bengaluru continues to witness pothole-ridden roads, broken footpaths, overflowing sewage, clogged rajakaluves (storm-water drains), non-functional street lights, hanging electrical wires, garbage accumulation, mosquito breeding, dangerous trees, damaged public infrastructure and endless road excavations.

Over the last five years alone, BBMP has operated budgets exceeding ₹60,000 crore, with a substantial portion earmarked for roads, storm-water drains, parks, footpaths, solid waste management and other civic infrastructure. Despite these enormous public expenditures, civic complaints remain a part of everyday life for Bengaluru residents. Citizens often complain on social media, approach local representatives or simply accept poor civic amenities as an unavoidable part of urban living. However, poor civic infrastructure is not merely an inconvenience—it may amount to a failure by statutory authorities to discharge duties imposed upon them by law. We had written an article in 2017 titled – “How to Sue your Municipality?” which raised a lot of eyebrows.

Public authorities exist to serve the public and are accountable for the manner in which public funds are utilised. Every resident has a legitimate expectation that civic infrastructure will be maintained with reasonable care and diligence.

The enactment of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 has significantly restructured the governance of Bengaluru. The Act establishes the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) as the apex metropolitan authority responsible for integrated planning, coordination and supervision of various civic agencies operating within Bengaluru. While several municipal functions continue to be performed by the newly constituted City Corporations and specialised agencies such as BWSSB, BESCOM, BDA and BMRCL, the GBA is expected to ensure coordinated governance and implementation of metropolitan infrastructure. The Act and its Schedules impose statutory obligations upon public authorities to provide and maintain essential civic infrastructure including roads, footpaths, storm-water drains, public lighting, sanitation, parks, public conveniences and other municipal services.

These are not discretionary services that may be provided at the convenience of the authorities. They are statutory obligations created by legislation. Unfortunately, citizens often assume that government departments are immune or they will harass the complainant and citizens live in fear. This belief is legally incorrect.

Suppose a pothole that has remained unrepaired for months causes a motorcyclist to suffer permanent injuries. Suppose a person driving a newly purchased vehicle suffers extensive damage after striking an unmarked road excavation. Suppose an electricity pole collapses because of poor maintenance and seriously injures a pedestrian. Suppose an apartment building develops structural cracks because the authorities repeatedly fail to desilt a rajakaluve despite numerous complaints, resulting in continuous flooding and soil erosion. Suppose a major arterial road remains under construction for several years without proper traffic management, causing commuters to repeatedly miss international flights, medical appointments or important business meetings. Suppose untreated sewage overflows into residential layouts causing health hazards and property damage.

Similarly, if a hotel or restaurant suffers continuous dust pollution because a road project remains abandoned for years, resulting in reduced customer footfall, contamination of outdoor seating areas, additional cleaning costs and adverse public reviews, the owner may contend that the authorities failed to exercise reasonable care in executing and supervising the public project. Likewise, if repeated flooding caused by failure to clear a rajakaluve damages commercial premises or inventory, or if prolonged road closures make business operations commercially unviable, the affected enterprise is not without legal remedies merely because the wrongdoer is a public authority.

These situations are not merely unfortunate accidents. They raise an important legal question— Who is Responsible to maintain these amenities and facilities? Isn’t it basic expectation from the government? Can the Government or the concerned civic authority be held legally responsible?

Indian law does not yet have a comprehensive statute codifying the tortious liability of the State. Nevertheless, the traditional doctrine that “the King can do no wrong” has gradually lost its absolute application in modern constitutional governance. Courts have consistently recognised that the State and its instrumentalities cannot claim blanket immunity where injury results from negligence, arbitrary action or failure to discharge statutory duties. Public authorities exercising welfare and municipal functions are expected to exercise reasonable care while maintaining public infrastructure. Where negligence causes foreseeable injury or financial loss, courts may award appropriate relief depending upon the facts of each case.

The Supreme Court in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663, observed that sovereign immunity cannot be invoked indiscriminately in respect of every governmental activity and emphasised the need for a comprehensive law governing the tortious liability of the State. Although Parliament has not enacted such legislation till date, constitutional courts have, in appropriate cases, awarded compensation for violations of constitutional and legal rights arising from governmental negligence.

However, not every civic inconvenience automatically gives rise to a successful claim for damages. A person seeking compensation must ordinarily establish four essential ingredients: first, that the authority owed a legal duty; secondly, that the authority breached that duty through negligence or failure to perform its statutory obligations; thirdly, that the breach directly caused the injury or loss complained of; and finally, that actual damage has been suffered. Mere inconvenience or dissatisfaction may not be sufficient. The claimant must establish a clear causal connection between the authority’s omission and the loss suffered.

The idea of claiming compensation from civic authorities is no longer merely theoretical. In 2025, a Bengaluru resident issued a legal notice to BBMP seeking ₹50 lakh in damages for the physical and mental suffering allegedly caused by the city’s deteriorating roads, reflecting a growing willingness among citizens to hold public authorities accountable.

The First step is to issue a detailed statutory legal notice to the concerned authority. Depending upon the nature of the civic function involved, the notice may be addressed to the concerned City Corporation, the Greater Bengaluru Authority where coordination issues arise, BWSSB, BESCOM or any other authority responsible for the project. The notice should clearly identify the statutory duties involved, narrate the chronology of events, specify the losses suffered, quantify the claim wherever possible, enclose supporting documents and call upon the authority to remedy the defect and compensate the claimant. Where the proposed proceedings constitute a suit against the Government or a public officer in respect of acts performed in official capacity, compliance with Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and other applicable statutory notice provisions should be carefully examined before instituting proceedings.

Under the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, responsibility for civic infrastructure is now distributed amongst multiple authorities. Roads, footpaths, drains, street lighting, parks and several municipal functions ordinarily remain with the concerned City Corporation. Water supply and sewerage continue to be managed by BWSSB. Electricity distribution remains the responsibility of BESCOM. Metro infrastructure falls within the jurisdiction of BMRCL. At the metropolitan level, the Greater Bengaluru Authority coordinates these agencies, prepares integrated plans and exercises supervisory functions to ensure effective implementation. Consequently, identifying the authority responsible for the particular act of negligence becomes the first step before initiating legal proceedings.

An aggrieved citizen should immediately preserve evidence. Photographs and videos of the defective road, fallen electricity pole, blocked drain or damaged infrastructure should be collected before repairs are undertaken. Medical records, repair invoices, expert opinions, police reports, insurance assessments, CCTV footage and copies of earlier complaints should also be preserved wherever available. If repeated complaints have been ignored, copies obtained under the Right to Information Act may become valuable evidence demonstrating prolonged administrative inaction.

Once the relevant authority is identified, a detailed statutory legal notice should be issued describing the defect, the statutory duty breached, the nature of the loss suffered, the compensation claimed and the remedial action expected. Depending upon the nature of the dispute and the authority involved, statutory notice requirements under the applicable municipal law and Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may need to be complied with before instituting a civil suit, unless the case falls within recognised exceptions permitting urgent relief.

If the authority fails to respond appropriately, several legal remedies may be available. A civil suit may be instituted seeking compensation for negligence and consequential damages. Where continuing failure to perform statutory duties affects public rights or fundamental rights, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution may be invoked seeking a writ of mandamus directing the authority to discharge its statutory obligations. In appropriate public interest matters affecting a large section of society, Public Interest Litigation may also be maintainable. Depending upon the facts, criminal liability of contractors or officials may also arise where gross negligence results in death or serious bodily injury.

Citizens frequently ask whether they can recover the cost of repairing a vehicle damaged by potholes, compensation for injuries caused by collapsing public infrastructure or losses arising from negligent civic administration. The answer is that such claims are legally maintainable, provided negligence, breach of statutory duty and causation can be established through credible evidence. Courts examine each case on its own facts. If the authority knew, or ought reasonably to have known, of the dangerous condition and failed to take timely corrective measures despite having the statutory responsibility to do so, liability may arise.

The accountability of public authorities is not confined merely to the institution as a whole. Commissioners, engineers and other officers entrusted with statutory responsibilities are expected to perform their duties diligently. While the law protects acts performed in good faith, deliberate inaction, arbitrary exercise of power, mala fide conduct or negligent failure to discharge statutory obligations may invite judicial scrutiny, departmental proceedings and, in appropriate cases, personal accountability. Government service does not provide immunity from the rule of law.

Democracy is not measured merely by the taxes citizens pay but by the accountability of institutions entrusted with those taxes. Roads, drainage systems, public lighting, sanitation, safe electrical infrastructure and clean public spaces are not acts of governmental generosity. They are basic civic services which the law requires public authorities to provide. Citizens who insist upon these services are not opposing the Government; they are demanding compliance with statutory obligations enacted for the benefit of the public.

Every legal notice issued, every writ petition filed and every successful claim for compensation sends a larger message that public authorities cannot indefinitely ignore their legal responsibilities. Civic accountability does not weaken governance—it strengthens it. Bengaluru deserves infrastructure that reflects the taxes its citizens pay and the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution and the laws governing urban administration.

Sources & References

1. Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 (Karnataka Act No. 36 of 2025).
2. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 80.
3. Constitution of India – Article 226.
4. N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 2663.
5. BBMP Budget Documents (2020–2025) and official budget allocations relating to civic infrastructure.