NEW DELHI: A delay of over four years has pushed up the cost of the country’s first Bullet Train project by around 83% to Rs 1.98 lakh crore. The first leg of the project, between Surat and Bilimora, is scheduled to be inaugurated in Aug 2027, while the entire 508-km corridor is likely to be completed by Dec 2029.Responding to a question on the cost escalation for the Ahmedabad-Mumbai High Speed Rail Corridor project being implemented by NHRSCL, at a briefing on govt’s Pragati initiative, Railway Board CEO and chairman Satish Kumar said, “While the final sanction for the revised cost is yet to be taken, it’s around Rs 1.98 lakh crore. It’s still under revision… It will be finalised within a month or two.”Initially, the project was sanctioned at a cost of around Rs 1.1 lakh crore. The project has faced time and cost overruns due to different reasons, including delay in land acquisition, statutory clearances and finalisation of the rolling stock (trains).In a statement last week, railways said that overall physical progress in the project stood at 55.6% until Nov 30 and financial progress at 69.6%. Until Nov end, Rs 85,801 crore had been spent on the project. TOI has learnt that PM Narendra Modi, while reviewing work of railway ministry last month, had directed it to expedite completion of the project.Earlier on Friday, railway minister Ashwini Vaishnaw virtually witnessed from Rail Bhawan the final breakthrough in a 1.5-km-long mountain tunnel, a part of the project, in Maharashtra’s Palghar district. “A big milestone has been achieved today (Friday). This achievement is the breakthrough of the mountain tunnel 5,” he said.In an official release, the ministry said that it is among the longest in Palghar district, being located between the Virar and Boisar bullet train stations. “It is the second tunnel breakthrough in Maharashtra, as the first 5-km-long underground tunnel between Thane and BKC was completed in Sept 2025,” it said. The project passing through Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli is designed to operate bullet trains at a speed of 320 kmph.The corridor will also be fit for operating the advanced Japanese E10 series Shinkansen trains as it is being designed to allow trains to run at 20 kmph higher speed. Once completed, the corridor will lead to an estimated reduction of nearly 95% in carbon dioxide emissions compared to road transport.

The tunnel would be of great strategic significance due to its proximity to Arunachal Pradesh, which borders China. (AI image for representative purpose)

NEW DELHI: In a first, India will get a twin-tube underwater tunnel that will have provision for movement of both vehicle and trains, boosting faster movement of forces and ammunition in case of any exigency, reports Dipak Dash. An inter-ministerial panel, headed by the expenditure secretary has given green signal for construction of a 15.8km twin tube tunnel across Brahmaputra river in Assam connecting Gohpur and Numaligarh. One of the tubes will have provision for a single rail track. As per design, there will be no vehicular movement when trains run through this tube. It will have ballistic track and the trains will run on electricity. The total project of 33.7km, including the tunnel, approach roads and railway track will cost around Rs 18,600 crore. Once the project is complete, travel time between Gohpur and Numaligarh will reduce from current six-and-half hours to just 30 minutes, shortening the distance from 240km to 34km. This will enhance connectivity to Arunachal, Manipur, and other northeastern states. The project cost will be borne by road transport, railways and defence ministry. Designed as two unidirectional tunnels with two lanes each, these will be built 32m below Brahmaputra’s deepest bed level. The project is expected to be completed in five years after the award of work. Officials said the projects will be placed before Union cabinet for approval and this may happen before Assam assembly polls. Last year, finance ministry had green signalled a road tunnel costing around Rs 14,900 crore with provision of 80:20 funding by road transport ministry and defence ministry. But following a decision to build road-cum-railway tunnels where it’s feasible, govt had identified three such tunnels for North-East chicken neck corridor, across Brahmaputra in Assam and on Maranahally-Addahole (Shiradi Ghat) stretch in Karnataka, which TOI first reported on Oct 6, 2025. Officials said because of provision of railway track in one tunnel the cost has gone up.

NEW DELHI: Disputes over sharing of river water among states is common, but India’s newest state Telangana, while objecting to Andhra Pradesh’s Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project (PBLP), has raised an interesting question before the Supreme Court – can a state unilaterally attempt to utilise flood water on an inter-state river? Telangana said the project violates the binding award of Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal and would deprive the residents of Telangana their due share of Godavari water, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. Tribunal ruling mum on surplus flood waters, Andhra’s projects cut into our share: Telangana Telangana said the tribunal award has not dealt with surplus flood waters and AP’s projects, constituted in the guise of using flood water, would reduce the Godavari water share of Telangana. No mechanism exists in the country to determine whether a project utilises flood water or the assured share of water allocated to states by the award of a water disputes tribunal award, the A Revanth Reddy-led Congress govt said. Telangana said AP govt’s decision to utilise more water through projects in the guise of harnessing excess flood water would have a chain reaction across the country. It said Karnataka intends to use more water of Krishna in the same manner which would accentuate water shortage for Telangana. “Maharashtra has also said that in case AP is allowed to plan projects based on flood waters, it would also like to plan projects on so-called flood waters. This would completely destabilise the utilisation pattern in the co-basin states violating the binding award of GWDT,” it said. A bench led by CJI Surya Kant on Monday will hear a writ petition filed by Telangana govt which challenged the decision of the Central Water Commission (CWC) to grant consent to AP govt to prepare detailed project report for PBLP even though there had been no in-principle consent for project feasibility report (PFR), which must be obtained prior to preparation of DPR. The Polavaram project was to be executed on the Godavari river as per the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal which was to carry 80 thousand million cubic feet (TMC) of water to the Krishna river through its canal system for use in the Krishna delta system. “Now, instead of approved diversion of 80 TMC of water to the Krishna river, AP govt is expanding infrastructure of the Polavaram project without any approvals to carry additional 200 TMC (intended to increase to 300 TMC later) of water to the Krishna river and beyond through Polavaram-Banakacherla Link Project/Polavaram- Nallamalasagar Link Project in the guise of carrying flood waters of the Godavari,” it said. Accusing AP govt of undertaking expansion work for PBLP and PNLP prior to submission of pre-feasibility report to the CWC, Telangana govt said AP has floated tenders for undertaking work despite CWC specifically informing it to wait for approval of PFR. It requested SC to stay the tendering process initiated by AP and the ongoing expansion works of Polavaram Right Bank Canal.

NEW DELHI: Underlining that an investigative agency must be given freedom to conduct a probe, Supreme Court has held that courts should ordinarily refrain from setting timelines for agencies to complete the investigation as it would amount to stepping on the “toes of the latter”. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh said that courts should step in to impose timelines only if there is delay on part of the agency to wrap up the investigation. “In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically,” it said, quashing the order of Allahabad HC that set a timeline of 90 days for the state police to complete the probe in a criminal case pertaining to procurement of arms licences on the basis of forged documents.Speedy trial, timely probe integral to Article 21: SC Supreme Court said judicial directives fixing timelines are warranted only where there is evident stagnation, unexplained inaction or a pattern of delay that cannot be justified by the nature or complexity of a case. Referring to various judgments of SC, the bench said, “Necessary conclusion to be drawn from the discussion is that timelines are not drawn by court to be followed by investigators/executive right from the beginning, for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are, therefore, imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences i.e. there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation or the like.“ At the same time, it stressed speedy trial, which necessarily includes timely and diligent investigation, has been recognised as an integral part of Art 21 of Constitution and cannot be ignored as it is essential to maintain fairness and credibility of criminal justice system. “The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing the practical realities of investigation with constitutional mandate that criminal proceedings, from investigation through trial, be conducted with reasonable promptitude and care. It is this balancing role that judiciary plays. It is for those reasons that while on the one hand, there is a statutorily laid down process in place which is generally followed, powers such as that of Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, have been kept open in their widest sense possible – to secure the ends of justice,” the bench stated. Court said the process of investigation is long and winding and legal proceedings also frequently intersect with the investigation and affect its pace and direction, and hinted that it might be difficult to complete a probe within a fixed timeline. “Applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, or the like can result in temporary pauses or changes in strategy. Courts may call for further investigation, ask for clarification on specific aspects, or even direct a change of the investigating officer. Each such intervention requires the investigating agency to revisit its work and sometimes take a fresh path altogether,” it said. “So, it can be seen that the investigative process is at times straight, at other times one of lots of twists, turns and recalibrations and in yet others, frustratingly round-about like before it can come to a somewhat definitive conclusion to present the case for trial before the concerned, and sometimes, even at that time the definitive conclusion, at least from an investigator’s standpoint, remains elusive,” it added.

PRAYAGRAJ: Allahabad HC has held that absence of written tenancy agreement or not furnishing particulars of tenancy do not bar jurisdiction of rent authority. HC has also said that under Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, rent authority has jurisdiction to entertain a landlord’s application for eviction of tenant where no written tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish particulars of tenancy. HC emphasised state legislature’s conscious decision to omit “fatal consequences” found in Central Model Tenancy Act ensured landlords were not deprived of their right to seek expedient eviction due to technical documentation failures. With this judgment dated Dec 16, HC partly allowed writ petitions filed by Canara Bank’s branch office and others. The issue in writ petitions was whether rent authority, constituted according to the 2021 law, had jurisdiction to entertain applications filed by landlords in cases where a tenancy agreement had not been executed, if not executed, the landlord having failed to file particulars of tenancy with the rent authority. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal said, “This provision leads to the conclusion that jurisdiction of rent authority under the Act of 2021 cannot be narrowed down only in cases of written agreement and its intimation to rent authority. Had the legislature thought of giving limited access to landlord or tenant to approach rent authority only in cases of written agreement or its intimation, then proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9 would not have been there in the statute book. The intention of the legislature cannot be ascertained merely on the basis of single provision, and regard must be given to other sections as well as the context, subject-matter and the object of the provision.” On behalf of the landlord, it was argued the 2021 Act was intended to balance the rights of owners and tenants. They maintained the legislature deliberately omitted the “consequences” for failing to intimate an agreement to ensure landlords were not stripped of their right to seek eviction. Essentially, they argued rent authority should handle disputes even in unwritten tenancies to prevent the law’s objectives from being frustrated by technicalities. HC observed the proviso further clarified the position to the extent that, in case of failure to present the agreement jointly or failing to reach an agreement, only particulars submitted separately with rent authority by the parties would suffice as to tenancy. For cases where eviction was sought directly under the new law, HC set aside orders that had previously deemed such applications non-maintainable due to a lack of written agreements. While some matters were remanded for fresh decisions, others resulted in eviction orders. In certain petitions, tenants were granted a six-month grace period to vacate the premises, provided they submitted a formal undertaking and cleared all financial dues.