Examine the ethical obligations of the state in ensuring public consultation before legislative changes affecting common urban resources.

Urban commons — parks, lakes and open spaces — are held by the state as trustee, not proprietor, a principle affirmed in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1996) [1]. Laws altering such assets therefore carry an ethical duty of prior consultation that goes beyond bare legislative competence.

The ethical basis of the obligation

• Fiduciary duty: as trustee of natural resources, the state must consult the beneficiaries — citizens — before diverting what it merely holds for them [1].
• Transparency: the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014 obliges departments to place draft Bills in the public domain for 30 days, with an assessment of impact on environment and livelihoods [2].
• Intergenerational equity: green cover serves future residents who cannot vote today; only deliberation can represent them.
• Non-arbitrariness: consent of the governed converts a lawful act into a legitimate one.

Where the obligation is being tested

• The Karnataka Government Parks (Preservation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026 permits alienation of up to 5% of a park's area for public infrastructure, amending the 1975 Act [3].
• Driven by the Hebbal–Central Silk Board tunnel road, it drew sustained citizen protest at Lalbagh, and the Chief Minister has since said the Bill may be reviewed again in the Assembly [4] — remedial deliberation after passage rather than before.

Why the duty is honoured in the breach

• The 2014 policy is advisory and non-justiciable: of 301 Bills introduced since 2014, 227 had no prior consultation, and 40 of the 74 published missed the 30-day window [2].
• Falling committee scrutiny and project deadlines reduce consultation to post-facto damage control.

Way forward: make pre-legislative consultation binding for Bills touching commons, publish an ecological and social impact note with the draft, mandate a Select Committee stage, and record how objections were disposed of.

Consultation is not a delay imposed on development but the process that makes development legitimate. Embedding it in law would align infrastructure ambition with Article 48A and the trusteeship the state already owes its citizens.