Introduction:

In the matter of LS Tejasvi Surya v. Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others (WP 19524/2025), the Karnataka High Court on July 7, 2025, issued notice to the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), the State of Karnataka, and the Union of India on a writ petition filed by BJP Member of Parliament Tejasvi Surya, who sought a direction compelling BMRCL to immediately release the long-awaited Fare Fixation Committee (FFC) report chaired by former Justice R Tharani, arguing that BMRCL’s continued refusal to publish the report was arbitrary, opaque, and violative of citizens’ legitimate expectation of transparency in decisions directly impacting commuters’ rights. The petition highlights that Surya, representing Bengaluru South constituency primarily served by Namma Metro, and also a daily commuter of the metro system, sent three formal written requests on April 28, May 8, and May 15, 2025, seeking publication of the FFC report but BMRCL ignored these, forcing the MP to approach the court. During the hearing before Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav, the Court’s pointed oral observation, “You are so powerful you cannot get BMRCL to do that much also?” underscored the frustration with BMRCL’s apparent defiance, to which Surya’s counsel replied that despite personal meetings with the BMRCL Managing Director and repeated reminders supported by widespread public demand, BMRCL continued to claim that it was awaiting state government approval and maintained that it had no discretion under law to release the report without clearance.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel, advocates Anirudh A Kulkarni, Akshay S Vasist, Aravind Suchindran, and Vasista R, argued that the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act and relevant rules do not confer any discretion on BMRCL to withhold the FFC report from the public after implementation of fare changes based on its recommendations, especially since transparency is foundational to fairness in decision-making by public authorities. The petition stated that after conducting comparative studies of metro systems across India and internationally, including field visits to Singapore and Hong Kong, the FFC submitted its report on December 16, 2024, recommending a revised fare structure. On February 8, 2025, BMRCL issued a media release acknowledging receipt of the FFC report, but astonishingly, on February 9, 2025, it implemented a drastic fare hike of up to 100%, with the maximum fare rising from Rs. 60 to Rs. 90 overnight, turning Namma Metro into India’s most expensive metro system. The steep hike sparked immediate public outrage, with daily commuters, students, and low-income workers protesting that the fares became unaffordable, forcing the petitioner to intervene. As a result, on February 14, 2025, BMRCL announced a partial rollback, capping the maximum hike at around 71%, but still without making the report public or explaining the basis for the new fares. The petition contended that BMRCL’s opaque conduct violated Article 14 of the Constitution by exercising its statutory powers arbitrarily, denying citizens a fair opportunity to scrutinize the reasoning behind the fare hike despite directly impacting their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) to free movement and Article 21 ensuring dignity through affordable transportation. The plea highlighted that in previous instances, metro corporations in Delhi, Mumbai, and Hyderabad have consistently published FFC reports, reflecting transparency and accountability in fare fixation processes, while BMRCL’s refusal undermined both public trust and principles of good governance. It was further argued that BMRCL, being an instrumentality of the state, is bound by the rule of law, the rule of reason, and doctrines of natural justice that demand fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness in actions affecting the public. The petitioner submitted that fare hikes without accessible reasoning foster suspicion of arbitrary decision-making, especially when public transportation directly affects millions of daily commuters’ lives and livelihoods. Meanwhile, during arguments, BMRCL’s counsel maintained that the metro corporation was constrained because the state government had not yet given its approval for publishing the report, and it could not unilaterally release it until formal consent was granted, despite the fare hikes already being implemented. BMRCL insisted that fare determination is a complex policy matter involving financial sustainability, operational costs, and ridership projections, requiring concurrence from the state and central governments before decisions can be made public. However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that this position made no legal sense since the fare changes had already been enforced publicly based on the report’s recommendations, which effectively meant the state had given tacit approval to the FFC’s conclusions by allowing the fare hike, yet BMRCL continued to withhold the report under the pretext of pending approval, which was arbitrary and amounted to suppression of material facts affecting public interest. The petition emphasized that this lack of transparency violated citizens’ legitimate expectation for openness in governance, especially when public money and infrastructure were involved, and pointed out that the fundamental rights of commuters, who depend on Namma Metro daily, were being undermined by decisions taken behind closed doors without disclosure of the rationale.

Judgement:

After hearing preliminary arguments, Justice Yadav issued notice to BMRCL, the state, and the union government, returnable in about two weeks, seeking their responses on the legal and factual issues raised in the petition. While the court has yet to adjudicate on the merits of the case, the sharp oral observations and issuance of notice signal the court’s recognition of the seriousness of the petitioner’s grievances regarding transparency and accountability in fare determination. The case has sparked significant public interest in Bengaluru, with daily commuters and civil society organizations welcoming the legal challenge as a crucial step to ensure that future fare revisions by BMRCL are conducted transparently and do not burden the city’s residents unfairly. The outcome of this litigation could set a vital precedent on transparency obligations of metro corporations nationwide, reaffirming that public utilities cannot operate in secrecy while taking decisions with direct, widespread impact on urban mobility and economic access. The case continues to unfold with the High Court expected to examine whether BMRCL’s reluctance to release the report, even after implementing fare changes, amounts to arbitrary exercise of statutory powers and whether the rights of commuters under the Constitution warrant judicial intervention to compel transparency.