Balcony Grills Need Approval? Bombay HC Explains

In many apartment complexes, residents frequently justify changes by citing what others have already done. “Everyone has enclosed their balcony,” or “Several neighbours have extended their bedrooms,” are popular arguments used in renovation conflicts. Legally, however, one unlawful change does not justify another.

What triggered the Bombay High Court’s directive?

According to media reports, a Bombay High Court bench observed that homeowners frequently install safety grills, lightweight protective sheds over open terraces, create partitions with gypsum or wooden panels, or reconfigure utility spaces to meet their requirements. While these are often regarded as minor changes, the lack of clear, consistent guidelines has resulted in confusion, disagreements with housing societies and builders, and inconsistent action by municipal authorities.

The judges noted that the open-to-sky terraces, as originally built by the developer, had been illegally enclosed by the neighbour. They concluded that the continuous presence of such unauthorized structures could not be tolerated and should be dismantled immediately, according to LiveLaw.

According to a LiveLaw study, flat owners frequently build safety grills, lightweight sheds over balconies or terraces, and modify interior partition walls with wooden or gypsum panels to meet their needs. While such improvements are frequently made after an Occupation Certificate (OC) is obtained, making similar changes before the OC is issued might cause the certificate to be delayed, preventing the developer from completing the project and frequently resulting in conflicts and litigation.

The Bombay High Court found that there is no clear, cheap, or conveniently accessible method for seeking consent for such changes. In the absence of clear guidelines, many residents make these changes without consulting the municipal corporation.

What exactly will the policy entail?

The suggested approach is expected to lessen disputes while assisting residents in determining what they can lawfully modify within their residences without breaching municipal restrictions.

According to media reports, the proposed policy will address common alterations made in residential buildings, such as whether residents can install safety grills, enclose balconies, or add lightweight coverings to balconies and terraces, erect or remove non-load-bearing partition walls, amalgamate or divide rooms with temporary materials, or reallocate utility areas within their flats. Clear guidance on such matters would help homeowners and municipal governments avoid avoidable disagreements.

The High Court also emphasised the importance of civic entities using a consistent approach when dealing with unlawful renovations, rather than following different procedures across jurisdictions. While the state has been asked to develop the strategy, the court made it plain that until such guidelines are issued, illegal structures would be subject to the existing legal framework and may face action from the relevant local authorities.