The Supreme Court dismissed West Bengal’s Special Leave Petition against a Calcutta High Court order directing traffic blockades for the Kolkata Metro Orange Line construction at Chingrighata, holding that the state’s conduct reflected an “obstinate attitude” aimed at stalling the metro rail project and amounted to a dereliction of constitutional duty.
THE Supreme Court, today, dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the West Bengal government against a Calcutta High Court order that had directed state authorities to identify weekend night traffic blockade dates for the construction of metro piers on the Kolkata Metro’s Orange Line, with the Court holding that the state had shown an “obstinate attitude” in its attempts to stall a public infrastructure project.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi refused to entertain the plea, which challenged a December 2025 order passed by a division bench of the Calcutta high court led by Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul.
That order had directed the state government and traffic police to schedule two consecutive weekend night traffic blockades to enable the construction and erection of piers on a 366-metre stretch at the Chingrighata junction on the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass.
The state government, for its part, raised several grounds against compliance. Before the high court, it had argued that police support could not be extended on account of the festival season. Before the Supreme Court on Monday, counsel for the state sought an adjournment until May, citing the upcoming West Bengal assembly elections and the model code of conduct.
The state also contended that the affected corridor is used by ambulances and organ transplant vehicles, and that board examinations were underway, making immediate compliance difficult.
The Bench, however, was unsparing in its criticism. Justice Bagchi observed that the state appeared to consider festivals more important than development, and that a democratically elected government should not be approaching the Court to seek relief from its own constitutional obligations.
He noted that the Election Commission of India would have no objection to a project that predated the imposition of the model code of conduct, and warned that the Court would not permit the state to use elections as a pretext to delay construction further.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, meanwhile, remarked that the high court had been lenient in its treatment of the state, and that this was a case where action ought to have been initiated against the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police.
He observed that the state’s conduct amounted to a complete dereliction of constitutional duty, and that the matter had been needlessly politicised. The CJI told the state’s counsel that, “We must not politicise everything. This is a developmental issue. It is a facility for the common man. Don’t create roadblocks.”
When the state’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the SLP, the Bench refused. Justice Bagchi made it clear that the state had been given the opportunity to comply and had not taken it.
The Court recorded in its order that, “This merely exhibits the obstinate attitude of the authority, wherein they want to delay and stall the metro rail project in the city of Kolkata. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court.”
The Bench expressed confidence that the project would now be completed in a time-bound manner, and directed the Calcutta high court to continue monitoring its progress.
The controversy traces back to a Public Interest Litigation filed by citizen-activist Upamanyu Bhattacharya before the Calcutta high court, challenging the indefinite delay in completing a critical segment of the Orange Line.
The PIL described the non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the state’s traffic authorities as “deliberate and unjustified,” pointing out that work on the stretch between Beleghata and Gour Kishore Ghosh stations had been at a standstill despite repeated efforts by Rail Vikas Nigam Limited.
According to the PIL, RVNL had constructed an alternate two-lane road for traffic diversion at Kolkata Traffic Police’s request and addressed all observations following an inspection in January 2025.
A formal NOC request was submitted on January 31, 2025, but no clearance was forthcoming. Efforts continued through February to June 2025, involving inspections with the Commissioner of Police, meetings with Secretariat officials, and a visit by the Railway Minister on June 28.
The PIL placed on record that the delay had cost Metro authorities Rs 1,376 crore over three financial years, a burden ultimately borne by the taxpayer.
The petitioner argued that the Orange Line project, approved in 2010, remains incomplete at the Chingrighata viaduct segment despite traffic diversions being a routine feature of Metro construction across Kolkata.
This single incomplete stretch, the PIL contended, is holding up the operationalisation of the entire Orange Line, which would otherwise complete Kolkata’s first Metro ring and connect the Blue, Green, and Orange corridors.
The delay, it was argued, constitutes a breach of fundamental rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution, depriving lakhs of commuters of access to efficient public transport.
Also read: West Bengal SIR
The high court, in its December 2025 order, had directed the state authorities to inform Metro Railway by January 6 about which three days would be made available for traffic blockades at Chingrighata, and set a deadline of February 15, 2026 for the completion of the overhead Metro tracks. I
t rejected the state’s preliminary objection on maintainability and declined the Advocate General’s request to stay the operation of its order, observing that in a country where festivals occur throughout the year, traffic congestion alone cannot serve as a perpetual ground to delay critical public infrastructure.
This is the latest in a series of disputes between the West Bengal government and the Centre that have reached the Supreme Court in recent months, including the protracted controversy over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, where the Court has similarly rejected the state’s objections to central directives.
Case Title: The State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Upamanyu Bhattacharya and Ors. | SLP(C) No. 7926/2026
Leave a Reply