The Karnataka High Court has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines to regulate, inspect, and enforce safety norms for Paying Guest (PG) accommodations across Bengaluru, expressing grave concern over the large-scale operation of illegal establishments in the city.

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by B S Karthikeyan appearing for Greater Bengaluru Authority that out of approximately 5,000 PG accommodations in Bangalore East alone, nearly 2,500 are operating illegally.

“…On enquiry as to what action the respondents have taken in respect of these illegal paying guest accommodations, he submits that notices are being issued to all of them, caveats would be filed both in the High Court and the respective Civil Courts having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction over those paying guest accommodations, and endeavors would be made to pass necessary orders at the earliest after providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned, and thereafter, these paying guest accommodations would be closed, and if necessary, demolition activities would be taken up where the construction has been put up in violation of the zonal regulations and/or the building bye-laws…”, the court accordingly noted.

While hearing the plea concerning the regulation of PG accommodation, Karthikeyan informed the court that notices have already been issued to 68 PG accommodations in Bangalore North for violations.

However, the counsel submitted that out of 5,000 PGs in Bangalore East, a staggering half of them is running without proper licenses, plan sanctions, or fire safety clearances, and adherence to other statutory safeguards.

Hearing this, the court ordered:

“…. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter relating to paying guests, the number of paying guest accommodations in the city of Bangalore, and the number of persons who would be affected adversely if any untoward incident were to occur, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents would have to implement the earlier guidelines strictly….”.

However, the court also noted that the existing guidelines are not comprehensive, and hence modified it to issue a 80-pointer directions.

To begin with, the court has asked the authorities to undertake an exercise to identify all premises within its jurisdiction which are being operated as PG accommodations, with or without license, or in violation of the statutory norms.

The Court has mandated that a trade license does not regularize unauthorized construction. Authorities would be required to examine sanctioned building plans, zoning requirements, and check for unauthorized mezzanine floors, terrace rooms, conversion of parking areas, or obstruction of staircases.

On the aspect of overcrowding, the permitted occupancy must strictly adhere to the sanctioned plan and safety requirements. The Bengaluru PG licensing framework's minimum area of 70 square feet per occupant must be verified, the court added. Corridors, staircases, balconies, and parking areas cannot be converted into sleeping accommodation, it was clarified further.

Fire safety, as a primary life-safety requirement, must be resorted to where there is an immediate danger to life, without waiting for routine proceedings. The Court prohibited the storage of LPG cylinders in staircases, corridors, or sleeping areas and directed strict inspection of electrical panels, earthing, and circuit protection.

To make the directions more encompassing, the court said that PGs accommodating women or vulnerable persons must maintain proportionate security arrangements, including controlled entry, visitor verification, functioning locks, emergency communication, and CCTV in common areas. The Court also mandated that security guards, cooks, and other staff must undergo police verification before employment.

As a caveat, the court has added that safety regulations cannot justify arbitrary intrusion into privacy. CCTV installation is prohibited in bedrooms, bathrooms, and toilets. Operators won't be able to photograph or circulate private activities of occupants except where legally authorized, it is stated in the order.

Operators must maintain current records of occupants, including their identity proof, permanent address, emergency contacts, and check-in/check-out times. The rules would differ, bringing the immigration department to the fore, in case of foreign guests, the court added.

“…These directions shall be implemented having regard to the nature of PG accommodation, particularly the fact that occupants may change frequently and that a single premises may accommodate a substantial number of unrelated persons…..The competent authorities shall accordingly adopt a continuing and risk-based system of identification, inspection, compliance and enforcement rather than treating licensing as a one-time exercise”, the court further clarified.

Violations are to be classified into Category I (immediate threats to life like blocked fire exits or gross overcrowding), Category II (serious regulatory violations), and Category III (rectifiable deficiencies). The Court directed that after perusing the violations committed, closure, sealing, or demolition of structures could be undertaken in accordance with statutory procedures for non-compliance.

“…. It would be required for all the authorities, including the GBA, the Constituent Corporations, the Fire Department, the Health Department, the Food Safety Department, as well as the Police, to take necessary action as regards these directions…”, the court noted in the order.

To ensure effective implementation of the directions issued, the Court has called upon several authorities who were not yet impleaded as respondents including the State of Karnataka (Urban Development and Health Departments), the Director General of Police (Fire Forces), the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), and BESCOM to coordinate.

“…It is made clear that if there are any violations by any of the paying guest accommodation owners or operators and no action is taken by the concerned officers, they would be personally liable for any untoward incident which may happen…”, the court added further in the order.

The Court emphasized that a complaint falling within the jurisdiction of another authority must be transmitted to that specific authority instead of rejection outrightly.

The court has also directed the competent authority to consider establishing a unified digital database of PG accommodations for ease.

The Court has directed the respondent competent authorities to place a consolidated protocol before it within six weeks, identifying applicable requirements, enforcement authorities, inspection methodologies, and statutory consequences for non-compliance.

Furthermore, a consolidated status report must be filed by the next date of hearing, detailing the number of PGs identified, licensed, unlicensed, inspected, and found compliant, along with the enforcement actions taken.

The matter will be heard again on September 22.

Context

To recap, the Karnataka High Court had earlier, in March, directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to inspect accommodations run by the Paying Guest Accommodation Welfare Association in Bengaluru, including to check whether the construction in question is as per the sanction plan.

The court was hearing the Association's petition challenging certain notices issued to it by the BBMP over alleged violation of trade license.

The court had then noted the petitioner's contention that all the compliances with the BBMP Chief Commissioner's order dated 07.08.2024 have been made and notices issued by the authority is without application of mind.

The court noted that Chief Commissioner's 2024 order pertained to guidelines to be followed while issuing the trade licence to all Paying Guest accommodations located in BBMP jurisdiction as per section 305 of BBMP Act 2020.

The BBMP's order notes that, as per BBMP 2020 Act, it is necessary to follow certain terms and conditions for issuing new Trade licence and renewal of existing trade licences to Paying Guest Accommodations in BBMP jurisdictions:

Case Title: M/s Princess Ladies PG v. The Chief Commissioner & Ors and connected batch

Case No: WP 14750/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order