Today, On 2nd August, Supreme Court questions the necessity of filing PILs during construction projects across the country. Such legal interventions, often seen as obstacles, raise concerns about their impact on development. These Public Interest Litigations, though intended to address public grievances, are perceived by some as hindrances to progress.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court emphasized on Friday that development and ecological balance must coexist, while expressing concern over the frequent filing of public interest litigations (PILs) against infrastructure projects like highways.
This observation came as the court addressed a petition regarding the doubling of railway tracks on the Vasco Da Gama-Kulem section of the Tinaighat-Vasco Da Gama route in Goa.
Read Also: PIL Challenges ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ Notification| Allahabad High Court
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and R Mahadevan remarked,
“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, national highways, the PILs come.”
The bench further questioned,
“You tell us a single internationally famed tourist resort where the railway facility is not there,”
Also pointed out,
“Go to the Alps mountains and they take you through the snow in train.”
The Supreme Court hearing a petition challenging the August 2022 decision of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, which dismissed a PIL concerning the railway track doubling project.
The petitioners had argued in the high court that the construction violated several statutory requirements, including the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification, the Goa Irrigation Act, 1973, the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Goa Town and Country Planning Act.
During Friday’s hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the project would enhance Goa’s railway network and alleviate the burden on road transport.
The bench commented,
“This is the only country meant to comply with all the international standards. The rest of the jurisdictions are exempted by the almighty.”
The petitioners’ counsel highlighted the dangers of unplanned development by referencing the recent landslides in Kerala’s Wayanad district that claimed 195 lives. Addressing the railway project in Goa, the bench assured that experts would examine all aspects thoroughly.
The counsel argued that the railway line passes through an ecologically fragile zone and emphasized that the plea should not be interpreted as anti-development.
The bench responded,
“Development and ecological balance must coexist harmoniously. This is indisputable. No one can endorse reckless development, as we operate under the rule of law,”
The bench continued,
“We understand that well, However, we need to ensure that the necessary parameters and standards have been met.”
Addressing the counsel, the bench stated there should be no unfounded or misleading concerns.
Read Also: PIL Challenges Exclusion of Disabled Persons from Judicial Appointments
When the counsel highlighted the ecological sensitivity of the Goa coastline, the bench remarked,
“Your main argument seems to be against the railway line. However, there is no objection when luxury vehicles drive through, with their plush bungalows and numerous cars. That doesn’t seem to be an issue for you.”
This case exemplifies the Supreme Court‘s broader scrutiny of PILs related to construction projects, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that ensures sustainable development while safeguarding ecological integrity. The court’s remarks reflect a commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that development projects meet established environmental standards.