Back
Directs Deployment of Pumps in 24 Hours for Waterlogged Prayagraj
In a significant intervention to address the severe waterlogging crisis gripping Prayagraj following incessant rains, the today directed the to deploy sufficient pumps and clear all low-lying areas within 24 hours. The bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad, was hearing a initiated earlier this week, highlighting the failure of civic amenities and the resultant hardship to residents, including advocates unable to reach court.
The court’s order came after Municipal Commissioner Seelam Sai Teja submitted that accumulated rainwater in low-lying areas could be pumped out within the next four to eight hours and that sanitation work would be undertaken simultaneously. However, senior advocates appearing before the bench described the ground situation as “grim and pathetic,” noting that several areas remained waterlogged, affecting lawyers’ chambers and residential colonies. The court, unimpressed by the pace of relief, expressly warned that it “did not want to hear at the next hearing that the city's low-lying areas were still waterlogged.”
Background of the PIL
The High Court took cognisance of the waterlogging crisis on , after reports emerged that incessant rain had submerged large parts of Prayagraj, disrupting daily life and the functioning of the district judiciary. The court observed that the inability of advocates and their clerks to reach the court, along with the destruction of case records, “directly affects the .” This observation underscored the intersection of civic infrastructure failure with the core functioning of the legal system, prompting the court to step in.
Over successive hearings, the court had directed authorities to clear low-lying areas within 24 to 48 hours and permitted emergency pumping of accumulated rainwater through Mori Gate and Daraganj. The present hearing focused on compliance and long-term solutions.
Court’s Specific Directions and Deadlines
The bench today issued a series of concrete directives to the and allied agencies. First, the Municipal Commissioner was ordered to ensure that enough pumps are installed wherever waterlogging continues and that all low-lying areas are cleared of stagnant water within 24 hours. The court clarified that the required pumps should be obtained from , Prayagraj, and if that agency lacks sufficient equipment, the must make the requisite number available within 12 hours.
Second, the court directed the Municipal Commissioner to assess the situation within two to three hours and arrange pumps accordingly. The tone of the order reflected the court’s frustration with the slow pace of relief; it effectively put the onus on the commissioner to personally ensure compliance.
Third, the court ordered the filing of a personal affidavit of compliance, containing ward-wise and area-wise details of localities that had faced waterlogging due to incessant rain. This affidavit is to also include information on drains that remain choked and whether desilting was carried out before the monsoon. Specifically, the court sought details of the plan for removing silt from the underground drain passing beneath the railway bridge on Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, George Town, and Sohabatiyabagh—a critical infrastructure point that has repeatedly caused waterlogging.
Non-Implementation of State Policy
A notable aspect of the proceedings was the court’s concern over the non-implementation of the ’s policy for the preparation of a Drainage Master Plan. placed before the bench a personal affidavit of the Secretary of Urban Planning and Development, along with directives issued under that notification concerning a long-term plan for controlling waterlogging and storm-water management. The court was informed that an , chaired by the Secretary, , had been constituted for project implementation and that its meeting minutes had been placed on record.
Despite these submissions, the bench opined that short-term measures may not suffice to prevent future crises. It emphasised that desilting of drains, construction of new drains, and development of a central area rainwater drain are long-drawn projects that require meticulous planning. Recognising that the matter concerns “the larger public interest affecting the life of the citizens of Prayagraj,” the court appointed as to assist in the proceedings. The amicus is to receive suggestions and plans from affected persons or other stakeholders wishing to place proposals before the court.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This case illustrates the proactive role of High Courts in compelling executive accountability under when public health and safety are at stake. By taking cognisance, the has effectively converted a recurring civic problem into a judicially monitored compliance exercise. Such interventions are not new—courts across India have used PILs to address waterlogging, waste management, and similar urban infrastructure failures—but the detailed time-bound directives here set a template for accountability.
For legal professionals, this case underscores that PILs can directly affect court functioning itself. The initial trigger—lawyers unable to reach court and case records damaged—highlights a symbiotic link between civic amenities and the . The court’s focus on personal affidavits from the Municipal Commissioner and explicit deadlines creates a legal framework where non-compliance could lead to .
Furthermore, the appointment of an to assist in formulating a long-term drainage master plan elevates the matter from emergency relief to structural reform. The court’s insistence on ward-wise data and desilting records reflects a judicial push toward transparency and pre-monsoon preparedness. Municipal corporations across Uttar Pradesh may need to review their own storm-water management policies in light of this judgment.
Conclusion
The has sent a clear message: persistent waterlogging in civic areas—especially where it impedes the justice system—will face judicial scrutiny with strict deadlines. By requiring the Municipal Commissioner to file a personal affidavit and threatening his appearance in court for non-compliance, the bench has raised the stakes for bureaucratic inertia. The matter has been listed for , at 2 PM, giving the administration over a year to implement both emergency and long-term measures. Until then, the court’s monitoring will continue, serving as a potent reminder that the right to safe and functional urban infrastructure is enforceable through public interest litigation.
