Frightened by the upward sloping crime graph in the Capital, Delhiites moved the court to stem the trend of lawlessness. On July 23, expressing strong displeasure over the deteriorating law and order situation in the Capital, Acting Chief Justice Mahinder Narain and Justice S.K. Mahajan issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Lt-Governor and Commissioner of Police on a PIL seeking a direction to the police to protect the lives of the citizens of Delhi.

The court ordered the government and the police chief to explain what steps were being taken in ``view of the state of lawlessness which seems to have affected the national capital.... One can imagine an incident taking place in an isolated place, but can you imagine a situation where buses were being looted in broad daylight?''.

The court agreed with petitioner Rajeev Awasthi that reports of robbery, murders and other crimes were growing and have caused an alarming situation where the authorities seem to have failed in their effort to maintain law and order. On October 15, Justices Anil Dev and Mukul Mudgal suggested the formation of a separate force for VIP security so that Delhi Police personnel could be spared for policing for the people.

In a city that is still haunted by the Uphaar cinema tragedy, a PIL was filed seeking a direction to properly equip the fire service so that it can protect the life and property of the residents of Delhi. On May 28, the court issued notices to the chief secretary, principal secretary (home), MCD commissioner, NDMC chairperson and chief fire officer of the Delhi Fire Service.

It was not just the breakdown in the law-and-order machinery or the inadequate fire services that led the courts to intervene in administration. When a growing population put increasing pressure on resources like water and electricity, the High Court hauled up the government for being unable to control the growth of unauthorised colonies.

On August 17, the court asked the government to impose an immediate ban on these colonies. Then Chief Minister Sahib Singh appeared in court and pleaded for an extension of the cut-off date for regularisation of unauthorised colonies on private land till December 31, 1997, instead of March 31, 1993.

However, Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and K.S. Gupta cautioned the CM that if the growth is not checked then ``the Capital will sink under the weight of its own problems.... We have to put an end to this exercise at some stage, otherwise if today 383 colonies are there, tomorrow another 5,000 would come up''.

The court's direction obviously upset the BJP's applecart. The CM said the next day: ``The people should know that irrespective of the court's directive development work initiated by us in the unauthorised colonies will continue.'' Earlier, on May 27, 1997, the High Court pulled up the Central and Delhi government for lack of a clear policy for dealing with the burgeoning slum clusters in the Capital. Justices Y.K. Sabharwal and D.K. Jain directed the land-owning agencies in the Capital and the police to ensure that no new jhuggis come up on public land.

Rapping the government for ``a lack of political will to tackle the problem,'' the court warned that if the government does not take a firm stand ``the court will step in''. Even more damning was the Supreme Court's criticism of the government for completely mishandling the air pollution problem in the Capital. In November 1996, then transport commissioner Kiran Dhingra had assured the court that 15-year-old commercial vehicles would be phased out from the Capital by April 1, 1998. But tens of thousands of noxious-fume spewing autorickshaws, taxis and trucks continued to suffocate a city, already gasping for fresh air.

On September 17, the apex court refused to extend the October 2-deadline for phasing out commercial vehicles, even though the government expressed willingness to scrap those over 12 years old if the deadline was extended to March 31, 1999. Amicus curiae Harish Salve pointed out to Justices A S Anand, B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare that when the apex court had ordered the closure of industries that were responsible for 12 per cent of the Capital's air pollution, it had warned that drastic measures need to be taken as the share of vehicular pollution was at a high of 69 per cent. On September 22, the Supreme Court relaxed the deadline for phasing out 15-year-old commercial vehicles to December 31, 1998.

While there has been some criticism on the activist role of the courts, former Additional Solicitor General Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi says: ``Public Interest Litigation per se does not signify excessive or unwarranted judicial activism. PIL is very much like an unruly force, depending very much on the dexterity of the rider to put it to good purpose. Ultimately judicial activism is also nothing but a mirror image of executive abdication. The feeling of helplessness, outrage and indignation sometimes justifiably and understandably, even knowingly, leads the court to step into areas it would not normally go into''.