Public Interest Litigation: SC Flags ‘Styled’ PILs, Praises Citizen’s Pursuit Of 20-Year-Old Subway Project

The Supreme Court has said writ courts are frequently called upon to deal with proceedings styled as Public Interest Litigations (PILs) which, on closer scrutiny, do not advance any genuine public cause.

However, dealing with an appeal filed by one Madurai Farooq Ahmed over the construction of a subway in place of a level crossing in Vaniyambadi, Tamil Nadu, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta commended the appellant for demonstrating how a vigilant and bona fide citizen can, through sustained and responsible engagement with public authorities and constitutional courts, draw attention to an issue affecting the community at large.

“Such constructive civic participation deserves acknowledgment,” the Bench said while disposing of Ahmed’s appeal regarding the delayed construction of a Limited Use Subway (LUS) at Vaniyambadi.

What Was The Dispute Over The Vaniyambadi Level Crossing?

Ahmed, a resident of Vaniyambadi in Tirupattur district, had consistently pursued the issue of Level Crossing No. 81, which is situated between the Vaniyambadi and Kethandapatti railway stations.

The railway line divides the eastern and western parts of Vaniyambadi town, and the level crossing is used by a substantial number of residents and commuters to travel between the two sides.

The Government of Tamil Nadu had, on November 13, 2007, granted administrative sanction for construction of a Road Over Bridge (ROB) in place of Level Crossing No. 81 at an estimated cost of Rs 13 crore, on a cost-sharing basis with Southern Railway.

However, during the subsequent examination of the project, it was found that construction of the proposed ROB would require acquisition of a substantial extent of land in a heavily built-up area and would entail considerably higher costs.

An alternative proposal for construction of a Road Under Bridge (RUB) was, accordingly, considered.

Why Was The ROB Proposal Changed To A Limited Use Subway?

As time elapsed, the Government of Tamil Nadu, on May 15, 2025, approved changing the nomenclature of the project from RUB to Limited Use Subway (LUS).

The State authorities thereafter initiated steps for the required land acquisition proceedings and for obtaining the necessary approvals for its construction.

Ahmed, however, approached the high court seeking directions to expedite construction of the LUS and complete it within a stipulated period.

The high court observed that granting the relief sought by Ahmed would effectively require it to continuously monitor the construction of the LUS and declined to keep the writ petition pending for that purpose.

What Did The Supreme Court Say About The Delayed LUS Construction?

During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Bench noted that the project had now progressed beyond the stage of mere consideration and that the authorities had initiated steps towards its implementation.

The State Government clarified that land acquisition proceedings were to be undertaken, along with further steps for preparing the designs, drawings and detailed quantity estimates for the LUS.

It was also submitted that the tender for the Railway portion had reached the award stage and that work would commence upon completion of the award process.

The remaining processes on the part of the State, including land acquisition and the preparation and approval of the requisite designs and estimates for the Highways portion, were also stated to be underway.

Court noted that the controversy had now substantially narrowed.

“The project, which has remained under consideration in one form or another for a considerable period of almost 20 years, has now progressed materially towards execution. We take the statements and assurances of the respondents on record and expect the concerned authorities to proceed with the remaining steps with due expedition and in coordination with each other,” the Bench said.

Why Did The Supreme Court Praise The Appellant?

Court noted that Ahmed had consistently pursued the issue concerning Level Crossing No. 81 and the proposed grade-separated crossing over several years, not for any personal benefit, but with the object of securing relief for the residents and commuters of Vaniyambadi.

He had approached the authorities as well as the high court on more than one occasion and continued to pursue the matter until the project reached its present stage.

“These days, Writ Courts are frequently called upon to deal with proceedings styled as public interest litigations which, on closer scrutiny, do not advance any genuine public cause. The present matter stands on a different footing,” the Bench said.

Court said Ahmed had demonstrated how a vigilant and bona fide citizen can, through sustained and responsible engagement with public authorities and constitutional courts, draw attention to an issue affecting the community at large.

What Deadline Did The Supreme Court Set For The LUS Project?

The Supreme Court based its decision on the concrete assurances and progress reports submitted by the State authorities and Southern Railway, indicating that the land acquisition and tendering processes were actively underway.

Consequently, the Bench declined to keep the matter pending for continuous judicial monitoring.

It directed the State Government and Railway authorities to complete their respective portions of the project with utmost expedition and without delay, granting them an eight-month compliance window.

Disposing of the matter, the Bench also directed the Registry to place before the court compliance affidavits upon their filing.

Case Title: Madurai Farooq Ahmed Vs The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: August 21, 2026