The Supreme Court emphasized on Friday that development and environmental conservation must coexist, questioning the frequent filing of public interest litigations against infrastructure projects such as highways.
This observation was made while addressing a petition concerning the doubling 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 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 the petitioner’s counsel, “You tell us a single internationally famed tourist resort where the railway facility is not there,” adding, “Go to the Alps mountains and they take you through the snow in train.”
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court’s August 2022 decision, which had dismissed a PIL related to the railway track construction. Petitioners claimed the work violated several statutory mandates, including the 2011 Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification and various local acts.
During the hearing, the court noted that the project would enhance Goa’s railway network and alleviate road transport burdens. The bench observed, “This is the only country meant to comply with all the international standards. Rest of the jurisdictions are exempted by the almighty.”
The petitioners’ counsel highlighted the risks of unplanned development, citing a recent landslide in Kerala’s Wayanad district that resulted in 195 fatalities. The bench responded that experts would review all aspects of the railway project and reiterated the need for balanced development and ecological protection.
“Development and ecological balance must go hand in hand. There is no doubt about it. Nobody can permit ruthless development. After all, we are governed by rule of law,” the bench said. They also emphasized the importance of ensuring that environmental standards and parameters are met.
Addressing the petitioner’s concerns about the Goa coastline’s ecological sensitivity, the bench noted, “Your ultimate argument is there should not be a railway line… You don’t have any problem when people with luxury vehicles drive there. They have plush bungalows, they have so many cars. You don’t have any problem.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea challenging the high court’s decision.
