The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the approval of a major water-supply project under the AMRUT 2.0 scheme. The hearing, held before Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf, was at times tense, with the bench repeatedly questioning the basis of the petitioner’s objections.
Background
The petitioner, Mahesh Garg, a self-described social worker, sought to quash two resolutions passed by the Indore Municipal Corporation and the Mayor-in-Council in 2023. These resolutions approved a detailed project report to significantly expand Indore’s water-supply infrastructure. According to the petitioner, AMRUT 1.0-launched back in 2011-remains incomplete, and starting a fresh scheme would “unnecessarily burden the public exchequer.”
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
His lawyer argued that the State should “finish what it started before launching a new one,” suggesting that Indore residents were already struggling because of earlier delays. But the State strongly disagreed, saying the city’s population and geographical spread have changed dramatically over the past decade.
Court’s Observations
The bench examined the AMRUT 2.0 documents in detail. At one point, Chief Justice Sachdeva leaned forward and remarked, “The population in 2011 was 19.64 lakh. Today it’s nearly 22 lakh, and 29 new villages have come inside city limits.” The judges noted that the municipal area has expanded by 280 sq km, and projections estimate Indore’s population could cross 82 lakh by 2050.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
Water availability was another major concern. The court recorded that the current supply is 323 MLD, but the city still faces a shortage of 97.67 MLD, which is likely to worsen. AMRUT 2.0 aims to increase supply capacity to 1650 MLD, a massive jump meant to future-proof the system.
When the petitioner insisted that the old scheme’s incomplete status should halt the new proposal, the Chief Justice firmly rejected the argument. “Merely because an earlier scheme is unfinished is no ground to stop the State from planning ahead,” the bench observed. “We cannot ask experts to freeze development simply because something from 2011 has not reached 100% completion.”
The judges also pointed out that 14 years have passed since AMRUT 1.0 was formulated. In that time, the State and the Municipal Corporation have gained “practical experience” that supports a fresh, larger strategy.
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies Key Rules on Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction After 2015 NI Act
An interesting moment came when even the petitioner’s lawyer conceded that water supply in Indore is inadequate. The bench took note of this admission, stating that urgent solutions cannot be stalled over financial objections.
Decision
The court concluded that providing safe drinking water is an essential responsibility of the State and cannot be delayed. “A financial burden on the exchequer is not a valid reason to hold back a scheme designed to ensure adequate drinking water,” the bench noted. With that, the judges refused to entertain the PIL further and dismissed it on the spot.
The order ends decisively, making it clear that Indore’s long-term water security must take priority over procedural objections.
Case Title: Mahesh Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 38893 of 2025
Case Type: Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Decision Date: 28 November 2025
