The Bombay High Court observed that Mumbai’s recurring monsoon flooding is not solely the BMC’s responsibility, stating that encroachments, blocked drains and illegal constructions by citizens have worsened the crisis. The Court urged shared accountability, remarking, “We should stop blaming the corporation.”
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday remarked that Mumbai’s recurring monsoon flooding cannot be attributed solely to shortcomings on the part of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). While acknowledging the challenges faced by civic authorities, the Court observed that widespread encroachments, indiscriminate occupation of public spaces, blocked drainage systems and unlawful construction by citizens have significantly contributed to the city’s annual waterlogging crisis.
The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the failure to remove encroachments for the widening of a road in a Mumbai suburb.
During the hearing, the Bench underscored that the responsibility for Mumbai’s flooding is shared by both public authorities and citizens. The Court noted that civic infrastructure is often rendered ineffective because of illegal occupations and misuse of public land.
Expressing concern over the recurring pattern of flooding after even moderate rainfall, Acting Chief Justice Ghuge observed that the problem has largely been created by society itself. He said,
“One small spell of rain blocks the roads in Mumbai. It’s our own creation. We should stop blaming the corporation.”
The Bench said that although the municipal corporation is frequently criticised whenever roads are submerged during the monsoon, citizens must also acknowledge their role in creating conditions that obstruct the city’s drainage system.
The Court elaborated on how public infrastructure has gradually been encroached upon over the years. It observed that citizens routinely occupy government land, dump construction material and garbage, block storm-water drains and later hold civic authorities responsible when flooding occurs.
Highlighting the issue, the Court remarked,
“We are good at grabbing lands. We have an uncanny knack of grabbing land. We put all the dirt and material inside that. We blocked the gutters. Then we had pavement blocks. Then pavement blocks were inaugurated by people’s representatives. Then they became parking lots.”
The Bench noted that drainage channels created by the municipal corporation have been obstructed because of illegal constructions and misuse of public spaces, making the city’s drainage network far less effective during heavy rainfall.
Continuing its observations, the Court said that infrastructure originally created for pedestrians and public convenience has gradually been converted into parking areas and commercial spaces.
It remarked,
“Corporation gave us drainage lines. We freed up the drainage lines. We put pavement blocks. We started parking our cars on that. Corporation gave us footpaths. We started having pav bhaji, pav masala, sabudana vada and everything. Stalls on that.”
The Bench observed that illegal occupation of footpaths by vendors, commercial establishments and parked vehicles leaves little room for pedestrians while also obstructing the natural flow of rainwater.
The Court pointed out that the problem extends even to areas surrounding the Bombay High Court itself. Justice Ghuge referred to the stretch behind the High Court building and observed that footpaths there have also been taken over by unauthorised xerox shops, tea stalls and other roadside vendors.
Questioning what more civic authorities could do under such circumstances, he observed,
“What will the corporation do? Our habit is to rob our own motherland.”
The remarks reflected the Court’s concern that public infrastructure is routinely misused despite repeated civic action against encroachments.
The Bench also criticised the tendency of encroachers to approach courts only after municipal authorities initiate demolition or eviction proceedings.
The Court observed,
“When the corporation comes for demolition, you say give me seven days notice. Then suddenly the law books are opened. Then you start reading the law. When you grab the land, nobody reads the law.”
According to the Court, individuals who illegally occupy public land cannot selectively invoke legal protections only when authorities seek to remove those encroachments.
The Court stressed that unless the culture of illegal encroachments changes, Mumbai will continue facing severe waterlogging every monsoon season. Summing up its concern, the Bench remarked,
“So that is how things are in Mumbai. We are destined to see rainwater on the road.”
The observations indicate the Court’s view that improving flood management requires both effective civic administration and responsible public behaviour.
The remarks were made during proceedings concerning a road-widening project in one of Mumbai’s suburban areas.
The petitions before the Court related to allegations that encroachments had not been fully removed, thereby delaying expansion of the road. During the hearing, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation informed the Court that it had already completed removal of encroachments required for the existing 30-foot-wide road. The civic body also stated that the exercise had involved the felling of nearly 192 trees.
However, the BMC explained that further widening of the road to 50 feet was not possible because the remaining land belonged to the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC), which functions under the Department of Atomic Energy. According to the municipal corporation, if BARC desired a wider road, it would have to make available the additional land lying between the present 30-foot alignment and the proposed 50-foot width.
Taking note of the submissions, the High Court observed that the Department of Atomic Energy should take an informed decision on whether it was willing to part with the additional land required for widening the road.
The Bench did not issue any immediate directions on the issue but indicated that the concerned authorities should examine the feasibility of transferring the necessary land to facilitate the infrastructure project. The matter has now been listed for further hearing in the last week of July.
Mumbai witnesses severe waterlogging almost every monsoon due to intense rainfall, inadequate drainage capacity and large-scale urbanisation. Over the years, courts have repeatedly examined issues relating to storm-water drainage, illegal constructions, encroachments and civic preparedness.
The latest observations by the Bombay High Court add another dimension to the debate by emphasising that flood mitigation is not solely the responsibility of municipal authorities. The Court highlighted that citizens must also refrain from encroaching upon public land, blocking drainage systems and misusing civic infrastructure if Mumbai is to effectively tackle its recurring monsoon flooding.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE