High Court Upholds Executive Control in Bypass Construction Case

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the construction of a bypass road. The primary reason cited by the Karnataka High Court for dismissing the PIL was that a PIL couldn’t be used as a mere substitute for the functions that fall under the control of the executive.

The court went on to explain that the present petition doesn’t meet the conditions of being in the public interest. Since laying down the road constituted an act that was fundamentally in the public interest, the petition’s subject matter did not come within that category. Consequently, since the Court did not possess the jurisdiction to issue such directives, it was unfeasible to contend that the road’s layout must comply with specific criteria or that authorities ought to select a particular planning approach.

The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, through which he pleaded before the honorable High Court to stop the construction of a bypass road located near Yelburga in Karnataka.

The petitioner contested that the route chosen for the construction of the bypass road passed through agricultural lands and was adversely affecting the tube wells and water wells.

But the court held that public interest litigations are only meant for cases that either directly impact the welfare of marginalized communities or impact any breach of fundamental rights.

“Not only the project of laying roads cannot be arrested as it would be against the public interest, but the directions of the kind and nature prayed for by the petitioners are not liable to be granted since they are the functions falling within the realm of the Executive,” the Court held.

The Court argued that decisions regarding road construction, including route selection, should primarily rest with the executive branch due to their expertise in this area. It stated that it typically refrains from intervening in purely executive decisions unless they are clearly arbitrary, irrational, or violate fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that it follows a principle of restraint in cases where it is the executive’s responsibility, unless there are overriding circumstances necessitating intervention in the public interest. As a result, the PIL was dismissed by the High Court.

WHAT IS A PIL?

A public interest lawsuit (PIL) is a legal action initiated in a court of law to safeguard “public interests,” encompassing concerns such as road safety, construction hazards, pollution, and terrorism. Such litigation can be lodged to address any matter impacting the welfare of the broader public. Notably, there is no explicit definition of a public interest lawsuit in any legislation or statute. Instead, judges have interpreted it by considering the collective intent of the general public.

PILs are extensions of the Writ Jurisdiction, allowing them to be filed either with any High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution or before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.