Gurugram Residents Move HC Over Civic Apathy: A PIL That Questions the Right to Life

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently issued notice to the Haryana government on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Gurugram residents over the “pathetic” state of roads, traffic mismanagement, security lapses, and unchecked encroachments in South City 1 and nearby areas.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry sought responses from the Haryana government, the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), and the Municipal Corporation Gurugram (MCG), among others.

The petitioners include Brigadier Paramjit Singh (Retd.) and Navneet Rajan Wasan, former Special Director of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), who argued that despite repeated complaints, authorities have failed to act, leaving residents with no option but to approach the court.

What the Petition Says

• The 150-page PIL, filed through counsel Yamini Nain, contends that the right to life and livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is being violated due to the absence of basic civic amenities.
• Residents alleged that Detailed Project Reports (DPRs) for road and sewerage works have been prepared but are gathering dust, with no tenders or execution.
• Advocate Varun Singh Dhanda, representing the petitioners, told the court that “pathetic” roads, traffic chaos, and encroachments have made daily life unsafe and unbearable.

The Legal Angle

1. Article 21 – Expanding the Scope of ‘Right to Life’
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to life is not limited to mere existence but includes the right to live with dignity, clean environment, and safe infrastructure (see Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar).
• By linking poor roads and civic neglect to Article 21, the petitioners are arguing that administrative inaction equals constitutional violation.
2. Natural Justice & Arbitrary Conduct
• The plea claims that the authorities’ refusal to act on existing DPRs amounts to arbitrary state conduct, violating principles of fairness and natural justice.
• Courts have previously intervened when government inaction has had a direct bearing on citizens’ fundamental rights.
3. Why PIL Matters Here
• A PIL allows citizens to move the High Court or Supreme Court for issues affecting the larger public interest, even if they are not personally aggrieved.
• In civic cases, PILs have been a key tool to ensure accountability from urban authorities that often cite resource constraints.

Why This Case Matters for Gurugram

• Gurugram, often called the “Millennium City”, has faced repeated criticism over collapsing infrastructure despite being a hub for multinationals.
• The petition could set a precedent for how courts handle urban governance failures—whether civic neglect will continue to be treated as an administrative lapse or escalated to a constitutional rights violation.
• If the court directs strict implementation of DPRs, it may push authorities to act not just in South City 1 but in other areas grappling with similar issues.

What’s Next?

The High Court has issued notices to all concerned authorities. Their responses will determine whether the court moves towards issuing enforceable directions or monitoring compliance on the ground.

For now, the case underscores a larger question: when the state fails to provide safe roads and basic amenities, can the judiciary step in to enforce the right to live with dignity under Article 21?

👉  This PIL is more than just about potholes—it’s about redefining civic failures as constitutional concerns. The outcome could influence how courts across India deal with urban infrastructure neglect.

 
📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more updates.