Karnataka High Court Sets Safety and Regulatory Norms for Bengaluru PGs

The High Court of Karnataka has issued a detailed set of guidelines for monitoring, regulating and inspecting paying guest (PG) accommodations across Bengaluru, after taking note of the large number of such establishments operating illegally in the city.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, who was hearing petitions filed by a few PG operators challenging notices issued by city corporations under the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), framed the directions in addition to existing norms, to be strictly implemented by the authorities. The court observed that the seriousness of the issue and the large number of people who could be affected by any untoward incident in illegal PGs warranted comprehensive regulation.

The GBA informed the court that of around 5,000 PGs in the East Zone, nearly 2,500 are illegal and that action was being initiated against them. Illegal establishments would be closed and, if necessary, buildings demolished where construction violated zoning regulations or building bye-laws.

Recognising that PG accommodation has become a vital source of temporary housing for students, employees, trainees and migrants seeking short- and medium-term stays in Bengaluru, the court clarified that the guidelines were not meant to prohibit or unduly restrict lawful PG facilities. The aim is to ensure that such establishments operate only from legally permitted premises, among other requirements.

Under the guidelines, authorities must identify all PG premises — whether licensed, unlicensed, operating with expired licences, or functioning under names such as hostels, co-living establishments or service apartments. The court held that substance, and not nomenclature, would determine the regulatory character of a PG.

On liability, the court said the mere fact of owning a building would not by itself make a person responsible for every operational violation committed by an independent operator. At the same time, an owner cannot knowingly permit unlawful construction, unsafe structural alterations or unlawful use where such responsibility is attributable to the owner under law.

Authorities are required to verify building and land-use compliance, including sanctioned plans, zoning, unauthorised floors, terrace rooms, converted parking spaces and blocked staircases. They must also check sanctioned and licensed capacity, the number of rooms and beds, actual occupants and the area available per occupant.

Fire safety is to be treated as a primary life-safety requirement, with mandatory verification of fire extinguishers, alarms, smoke detectors, emergency lighting, exits, evacuation routes, kitchen and LPG safety, and access for fire vehicles.

The court also emphasised occupant privacy and dignity, stating that safety regulations cannot justify arbitrary intrusion. CCTV cameras are prohibited in bedrooms, bathrooms, changing areas and other private spaces. Establishments accommodating women or other vulnerable persons must maintain security arrangements proportionate to their nature and occupancy.

The guidelines call for consideration of a unified digital database of PG accommodations and a mechanism for coordination among departments. The court made clear that if violations by PG owners or operators go unaddressed, the concerned officers would be personally liable for any untoward incident.

Further hearing in the matter was adjourned to September 28, with the GBA directed to file a status report detailing the number of PGs identified, the violations found and the action initiated against such breaches.