The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking broad directions on maintenance of roads, bridges and electric wiring, calling the petition overly sweeping. The Bench remarked that the plea was like a “shopping mall” of reliefs and said such issues should be raised before the concerned High Courts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought wide-ranging directions to ensure public safety through proper maintenance of roads, bridges, electric wiring and other public infrastructure across the country.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the petition was extremely broad in nature and sought multiple directions which the Court found impractical to address in a single proceeding. The Court noted that the issues raised in the plea lacked specific details and instead sought sweeping nationwide directions that would be difficult to implement.
During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over the wide scope of the reliefs requested by the petitioner. At one point, the Court remarked,
“You want us to run the entire country,”
while questioning the practicality of the directions sought.
The Court further criticised the manner in which the petition had been drafted, observing that it included an excessive number of demands covering different aspects of public infrastructure and safety. Referring to the wide range of reliefs mentioned in the petition, the Bench said the plea resembled a commercial outlet filled with multiple items.
“Your petition is as good as a showroom or a shopping mall. Right from repairing potholes, roads, finish unfinished structures like bridges, everything is there. You name a relief on the earth and everything is there in this,”
the Bench remarked.
The Court also pointed out that such directions, if issued, would involve financial implications for the governments, especially state governments. In such situations, the High Courts are better placed to deal with local infrastructure issues as they are more familiar with the financial and administrative realities of the respective states.
When the counsel for the petitioner argued that people were losing their lives across the country due to negligence by authorities responsible for maintaining public infrastructure, the Court maintained that broad and general directions cannot be issued unless the issues raised are specific and clearly defined.
Chief Justice Surya Kant also told the petitioner’s counsel,
“You are asking for sweeping directions,”
indicating that the Court cannot take up such an extensive and generalized request without concrete details.
After considering the matter, the Bench declined to entertain the petition at the Supreme Court level. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate High Court with a properly drafted petition addressing specific issues.
In its order, the Court stated,
“It is nearly impossible to issue directions which will be completely unmanageable until and unless the issues raised are specific… we decline to entertain this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional high court, if so advised, by way of an appropriately drafted petition.”
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the petition.
The PIL had sought several directions from the Court aimed at improving public safety infrastructure across the country. Among other things, it asked for regular maintenance, routine inspection, and safety audits of public utilities such as roads, bridges and electric wiring.
The petition also requested the Court to direct authorities to set up a high-level independent safety audit committee. According to the plea, the committee should include civil engineers, infrastructure experts, forensic investigators and representatives from civil society and human rights organisations to conduct periodic inspections and audits of civic infrastructure in metropolitan as well as semi-urban regions.
Additionally, the petitioner sought directions to the authorities to collect, digitise and publicly release data related to infrastructure-related deaths across the country. The plea suggested that the government should gather such data from 2020 onwards and submit district-wise reports to the Supreme Court every quarter.
ALSO READ: Fake ORS Drinks a Health Hazard; Public Safety Comes First, Says Delhi High Court
However, the Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the petition was too broad in scope and that such matters would be better addressed through specific petitions before the respective High Courts, which are more suited to examine state-level administrative and financial considerations.
The dismissal of the plea highlights the Court’s consistent approach that PILs must be precise and focused on clearly identifiable issues rather than seeking broad policy directions affecting the entire country.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Public Safety
