Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
OtherLibra India v. Union of India & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 875/2016 (PIL)
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 20 February 2025
- Bench
- Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Chandra Prakash Shrimali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 21, 38 (Part IV, Directive Principles of State Policy)
Final Outcome
Interim order; no final relief. The Court issued directions for affidavits, kept the status quo over the 25 bighas and listed the matter on 17.03.2025 (paras 20-27). Later orders on the High Court's website show the PIL still pending in October 2026.
Key holdings
- Poor aviation infrastructure is not just an infrastructural issue; it opens doorways for a potential violation of Article 21 (para 4).
- The Civil Aviation Secretary must explain on affidavit the missed March 2025 terminal deadline, the plan to finish by October 2025 and the 13 taxi stands (para 20).
- CISF must file affidavits on permanent residential facilities and its deployment of 197 personnel (para 20).
- The State must assess other States' incentives and say on affidavit whether a western Rajasthan aviation policy exists (paras 20, 25).
- The Union must file its aviation road map for western Rajasthan and explore more ‘alliance airlines’ services; the JDA must propose more land (paras 22-23, 26).
Brief Facts
On 16.04.2024 the Additional Solicitor General had stated that Jodhpur airport's new terminal building would be completed by March 2025 (para 8). On 20.02.2025 his assisting counsel conceded this was not possible, said on oral instructions that it would be finished by October 2025 and put progress at about 75% (para 9). Thirteen taxi stands were complete and 197 CISF personnel were on duty (para 10). The Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) said 25 bighas proposed for CISF were not needed and remained under status quo (para 12). IndiGo and Air India said more flights were not yet viable (para 13). The amicus curiae suggested directing ‘Alliance’, an airline under Central Government control, to fill the gap (para 14).
Court's Findings
The Court described Jodhpur, the gateway of the Thar Desert, as isolated from major urban hubs, with an airport of limited capacity and few direct flights (para 2). Poor connectivity hindered institutions such as AIIMS, IIT and the National Law University, as professionals and faculty could not travel there (para 3). It held that this was "not just an infrastructural issue": the planners' approach had opened doorways for a potential violation of the Article 21 right to a progressive, meaningful and dignified life (para 4). Under Article 38, justice could be secured by ensuring access to facilities necessary for a meaningful life, and connectivity was of paramount importance for education, healthcare and business (para 5). Air travel, once an upper-class industry, now underpinned development and the right to livelihood (para 18). The PIL's nine-year pendency was affecting defence, health, education and tourism (para 7). The poor state of facilities was attributable to slow infrastructure work, timelines extended one after another and a lack of concrete decisions (para 17); repeated assurances had produced no results (para 19).
Legal Principle
Aviation connectivity is not merely an infrastructural matter: planners' neglect can engage the Article 21 right to a meaningful and dignified life, and Article 38 obliges the State to secure access to facilities such a life needs. Where a continuing mandamus yields only assurances, responsible officers may be required to explain delays on affidavit (paras 4-5, 19-20).
