Sanchita Chatterjee, BS News Agency, Kolkata: In a significant development highlighting judicial scrutiny of construction in ecologically sensitive zones, the Supreme Court has directed the Calcutta High Court to continue hearing a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) concerning alleged illegal construction along the Hooghly River by PS Group Realty Pvt Ltd.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi passed the order on January 15, modifying an earlier High Court direction and reaffirming the need for an independent judicial examination of the project. The bench also instructed the High Court to appoint an eminent advocate as amicus curiae and directed all official respondents to place relevant records on affidavit to enable an informed hearing.
The ruling comes amid growing concern over unchecked urban development along riverbanks in Kolkata and other Indian cities, raising issues of environmental degradation, flood risks, and regulatory compliance. These show the riverfront residential towers and architectural renderings put forward by PS Group for its luxury project (often referenced in discussions about the Hooghly riverbank development). The project is being marketed as premium riverfront living along the Hooghly.
The controversy centres on a high-rise residential project — reportedly a 45-storey tower — being developed by PS Group Realty along the Hooghly riverbank. Environmental groups and local residents have alleged violations of river conservation norms, environmental regulations, and municipal building laws.
The matter initially reached the Calcutta High Court through a PIL filed by a private individual, following which the court converted it into a suo motu PIL, citing the larger public interest involved. However, complications arose when it was revealed that the petitioner had failed to disclose six pending FIRs against him. While the High Court imposed a fine of ₹50,000 for non-disclosure, it chose to continue the proceedings.
PS Group Realty subsequently approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the litigation was tainted due to the petitioner’s lack of credibility and that continuation of the case amounted to judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the petitioner’s misconduct, held that issues of environmental protection and large-scale urban development cannot be dismissed on that ground alone. Observing that the matter raised serious questions of public importance, the bench directed the High Court to continue hearing the suo motu PIL, but barred the original petitioner from active participation. He may, however, assist the amicus curiae if required.
Significantly, the apex court directed the appointment of an independent amicus curiae to assist the High Court by examining legal, environmental, and regulatory aspects of the project. Legal experts say this step ensures objectivity and shields the proceedings from allegations of motivated litigation.
The Supreme Court further directed all official respondents — including state departments, municipal bodies, pollution control authorities, and environmental regulators — to place complete records before the High Court for comprehensive adjudication.