The Supreme Court on Friday expressed concerns over the prevalence of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against development projects, specifically questioning why such legal actions often coincide with the initiation of major infrastructure works in India. The comments arose during a hearing regarding the expansion of railway tracks on the Vasco Da Gama-Kulem section of the Tinaighat-Vasco Da Gama route in Goa.
Justices Surya Kant and R Mahadevan, who were presiding over the case, pointed out the peculiar trend of filing PILs whenever new roads or national highways are constructed. “We are only wondering why this happens only in this country that when you start constructing a road in Himachal (Pradesh), the PILs come. When you start constructing a highway, the PILs come,” Justice Kant remarked.
The court was responding to a petition challenging a 2022 verdict from the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, which had dismissed a PIL contesting the railway track doubling project. The petitioners had argued that the construction was proceeding without the necessary permissions as mandated by various environmental and local statutes, including the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone notification and the Goa Panchayat Raj Act.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of balancing development with ecological sustainability, but also pointed out the need for practicality in development approaches. “You tell us a single internationally famed tourist resort where the railway facility is not there,” the bench challenged, using the Alps’ train routes as an example of integrating infrastructure with nature.
The bench also took a moment to reflect on the broader context of regulatory compliance, humorously noting, “This is the only country meant to comply with all the international standards. Rest of the jurisdictions are exempted by the almighty.”
Further complicating the issue, the counsel for the petitioners referenced a recent tragic incident in Kerala’s Wayanad district, where landslides caused significant casualties, to underscore the potential dangers of unplanned development. However, the court remained skeptical of halting progress, emphasizing that experts are examining the project’s implications carefully.
Also Read
“We also know it very well. But then we have to see whether those parameters, those standards have been taken care of,” the justices explained, indicating a nuanced approach to development that respects both progress and preservation.
Ultimately, the court declined to entertain the plea, reaffirming the high court’s decision and underscoring the judiciary’s stance that development and ecological considerations must be balanced thoughtfully and lawfully.
