CASE ANALYSIS- KISHORE DEEPAK KODWANI &ORS. VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH &ORS. (2025)

INTRODUCTION 

The Urban Transport Planning system in India faces the dual challenge of balancing the continuous growth of population, vehicles and maintaining the infrastructure and environment sustainability. This case focuses on the public transport solution introduced by the Madhya Pradesh Government – THE BUS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM (BRITS) in Indore. However, this system failed and became obsolete and caused grievances to the public which led to the use of legal redressal mechanisms like the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) system by the public to question the utility of such projects.

FACTS OF THE CASE  

The BRITS is a public transport system designed to offer more efficient and faster service to the citizens. It is done by allocating separate, dedicated lanes exclusively for buses providing segregated corridors for offering faster travels, and minimizing interference from mixed traffic. It was implemented to reduce traffic congestion, promote an eco-friendly alternative to private vehicles and encourage the use of public transport among the people.

The petitioners, residents of Indore filed a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India seeking the Hon’ble Court’s intervention and relief in dismantling the BRITS CORRIDOR. They initiated a public interest litigation challenging the ongoing BRITS in Indore. They argued that the system had failed its objective and was no longer helpful for the public and did not serve the purpose for which it was implemented. It instead caused severe traffic congestion in the city by occupying large portions of the road and endangered the safety of the public resulting in frequent accidents due to its poor design, sharp and unclear turns, abrupt lane changes and physical barriers installed. It also reduced the road width for non BRITS vehicles especially during rush hours worsening traffic congestion and also cause high inconvenience to pedestrians, commuters and other emergency vehicles like ambulance. Thus it was poor utilized with low ridership, unreliable services, unresourceful to public and also not cost friendly which even added to the grievances of the public. 

ISSUES OF THE CASE 

1. Does the BUS RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM (BRITS) in Indore continue to serve the interest of the public as was intended during its implementation?
2. Can the High Court intervene in the executive matters of the government regarding its transport policies and urban infrastructure?
3. What is the role of public interest litigation in influencing the decisions of the government regarding the urban infrastructural policies and decisions?

JUDGEMENT 

In response the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted a five member committee of expert and qualified persons to check and assess the present functioning and utility of that ongoing BRITS corridor. The committee concluded that the city’s population, number of vehicles and the commuting patterns had changed significantly since the implementation of the said BRITS.  The committee also concluded that the BRITS corridor has become outdated and obsolete and indeed caused unnecessary traffic congestion in the city and even posed high safety risks for the public. It instead provided an alternative infrastructure idea to the government such as construction of flyovers and widening the roads would solve public grievance and serve the public better. 

The State Government accepted the Committee’s findings and issued formal orders and decided to dismantle the BRITS corridor entirely, to begin the construction of seven flyovers in the affected areas throughout the city and also conduct studies for improvement of traffic mobility in the city.

When the matter came up to the court for final hearing on February,2025, The High Court observed:

1. The main relief which the petitioners sought – the dismantling of the BRITS corridor, has already been acknowledged by the government, accepting the committee’s report and also took steps for the construction of seven flyovers in the city as was suggested by the committee. Thus there was no more need of the Court to adjudicate upon this matter.     
2. Since the government’s action has already aligned with the public welfare, the PIL bought by the petitioners had become INFRUCTUOUS.
3. Thus the Court disposed of the petition reiterating it does not intervene in administrative matters of the government unless there is some arbitrary policies in these decisions. 

REASONING 

1. DOCTRINE OF  INFRUCTUOUSNESS:

The foremost reasoning that was adopted by the Court in this matter was that the relief sought by the petitioners had already been granted by the State’s Government through a policy shift in the State’s executive decisions. Thus the court held that there was no further cause of adjudication as the petitioner’s demands were already met. Referring to the legal doctrine of infructuousness, the Court noted that once a grievance is already addressed by an executive relief, judicial pronouncement becomes unnecessary. 

2. Judicial restraint in policy decisions:

The court emphasized the limits of judicial reviews in matters of public policy, especially when expert committee and administrative competent opinions are involved. The Court reiterated that policy decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and courts must not intervene in these policies unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional or violates public interest. 

3. Importance to expert opinion:

The judgement demonstrated the Court’s reliance on expert opinions of the five member committee consisting engineers, city  officials, transport experts – provided a simple, comprehensive report stating the BRITS corridor had failed the public and become obsolete, having low passenger usage, posing high rates of accident near the corridor dividers becoming incompatible with the public infrastructure. Accepting the committee’s suggestions and decisions, the Court observed that judicial wisdom should not override technical expertise, especially when it has already been incorporated in matters of urban infrastructurual plannings of the government. 

CONCLUSION 

The case of KISHORE DEEPAK KODWANI & ORS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH shows how public interest litigation system can inspire meaningful change in the governance. It also demonstrates constitutional boundaries where courts encourage administrative responsibility but avoid direct intervention in executive matters. It shows a perfect balance between executive and judiciary in serving public interests.  

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92838900/
2. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67c15f90776d7650ae7ada4d
3. https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-monthly-digest-march-2025-289466#:~:text=A%20bench%20of%20Justice%20Devnarayan,Director%20For%20’Misquoting’%20Court%20Order

Written by Anushka Sil; an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.