Bengaluru Peripheral Ring Road Project : Karnataka HC Stops Appraisal Of EIA Report On Law Students' Plea

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ashok S Kinagi while hearing a petition filed by three law students said "As virtual hearing(public hearing for EIA) through zoom platform has already commenced today it is not possible to grant stay as prayed on conduct of virtual hearing. However, interim relief will have to be granted directing that appraisal as required by Clause 4 of Para 7 of the notification dated 14 September 2006, shall not be taken in relation to the said project."

The bench has directed the respondents to file their statement of objections to the petition filed by petitioners P B Shashaankh and Pratik Kumar from Jindal Law School and Anushka Gupta from National Law University, Delhi, by the next date of hearing, October 15. The respondents are directed to satisfy the court on whether the public hearing can be substituted with virtual hearing through zoom platform.

The project was proposed in the year 2005, to build a 65-km eight-lane peripheral ring road in Bengaluru to decongest the city.  

The petitioners contended that as the project causes major environmental impacts to multiple rural and urban communities and the biodiversity of the region, holding the public consultation process virtually restricts multiple vulnerable communities, which do not have the technical means to attend the virtual hearing, from effectively raising their concerns about the project, leading to an abject fail of the 'public consultation' process.

Further it was contended that "The Impugned Notification by way of mandating a virtual public consultation hearing ignores the social matrix of the people this notification affects and violates the constitutional rights of the multiple minority communities affected by the project and the people of the State of Karnataka."

Bench takes exception to the petition getting publicity before its consideration by the court

During the hearing the bench took strong objection to the publicity given to the petition even before it was considered or assigned for hearing by the court.

Chief Justice Oka said "The petitions are law students. They know only how to give publicity to the petition before it is heard. Wide publicity was given by them. They are going to join the profession of law. They have understood only one thing before the petition is heard wide publicity must be given."

It added "We deprecate this practice of going to the media that court is going to hear the matter even before the date is fixed. They must learn a lesson."

Counsel for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, submitted that "I am not aware that my clients are responsible for giving it to the media." He even contended that in the Supreme Court, every day when petitions are filed even before somebody gets to see, it is in the press. It is not always the lawyers or clients who are doing it.

In its order, the court noted "It appears that even before the petition was listed before this court, publicity was given of the filing of this petition in the media. We make it clear that there is no law which prohibits such publicity and therefore first we cannot find fault. The only question which will have to be addressed by law students who are future lawyers is whether it is proper on their part to have approached the media even before the court considers the petition on merits."

It added "If the petitioners want to say that they are not responsible for giving media publicity, as students of law they should place their views on record on the question of giving publicity in this manner to a PIL."