Introduction:

On January 20, 2025, the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Narmada Prasad Mishra, challenging the structural integrity of a newly constructed 7-kilometer flyover in Jabalpur city. The petitioner claimed damages and alleged public safety concerns based on newspaper reports. The Court, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, refused to entertain the petition, citing the lack of scientific evidence, photographs, or a well-documented inspection to support the claims. The judgment emphasized the need for concrete evidence in PILs and rejected reliance on mere newspaper cuttings as the basis for filing such petitions.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the flyover suffered damages and cracks, rendering it unsafe for public use. The petition was primarily based on information reported in newspapers. It was alleged that the State’s inquiry into the flyover’s condition lacked impartiality, as the head of the inspection committee was also responsible for overseeing the flyover’s construction. The petitioner contended that an independent investigation by a neutral body was necessary to determine the flyover’s structural soundness. Additionally, the petitioner criticized the government for failing to address the alleged deficiencies in construction, claiming that public safety was at risk.

The petitioner’s counsel insisted that the flyover inspection report was not reliable due to potential conflicts of interest and further asserted that the inspection committee should have involved experts from a different department. In support of their argument, the petitioner provided newspaper clippings highlighting the alleged damages but failed to furnish photographs or scientific reports of their own.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The State’s counsel strongly opposed the PIL, arguing that the petition was frivolous and lacked evidentiary support. It was submitted that the flyover in question had been thoroughly inspected by a committee comprising the Chief Engineer, Engineer-in-Chief, and the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS). The committee’s report, dated January 10, 2025, revealed that the alleged cracks were superficial and attributed to natural expansion and contraction due to seasonal changes. The council explained that the structural gaps in the flyover were deliberately designed to accommodate such expansion and contraction, ensuring the flyover’s safety and durability.

The State further argued that the petition was filed with ulterior motives, targeting a government official who had already been transferred in 2020 and had no involvement in the current inspection process. The State also highlighted that 99% of the flyover was complete and fully functional, with only minor corrections underway. The inspection was conducted with photographs, and the findings confirmed the absence of any structural defects. The State’s counsel dismissed the petitioner’s claims as baseless, emphasizing that the PIL lacked the requisite “homework” to substantiate the allegations.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments, the division bench dismissed the PIL, citing multiple deficiencies. The Court observed that the petitioner had not submitted any scientific or technical report to support the allegations of structural damage. The claims were solely based on newspaper clippings, which the Court found insufficient to substantiate a public interest claim. Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait questioned the petitioner’s counsel on whether they had personally inspected the site or gathered evidence, to which the response was evasive. The bench criticized the petitioner’s lack of preparation, remarking that filing a PIL based on unverified newspaper reports undermines the seriousness of public interest litigation.

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s concerns about the inspection committee’s impartiality, noting that the official accused of bias had been transferred years prior and had no involvement in the current proceedings. The bench accepted the State’s submission that the inspection was conducted by a high-level committee, including the Additional Chief Secretary and the Engineer-in-Chief, and concluded that the report was reliable. The Court acknowledged that superficial cracks and expansion gaps in the flyover were natural and posed no safety concerns.

Ultimately, the Court held that the petition was unsubstantiated and dismissed it, reiterating that PILs must be backed by credible evidence and due diligence. The judgment underscored the importance of responsible litigation and cautioned against the misuse of judicial resources for baseless claims.