The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court initiated 23 public interest litigation (PILs) on its own in the first 11 weeks of 2026 based on news reports and letters from lawyers.

This already exceeds the 18 suo motu PILs initiated by it in the whole of 2025.

Justice Anil S Kilor has been the most frequent member of the benches driving these cases, often sitting with Justice Raj D Wakode.

The judges have been converting news reports and emails into PILs and appointing amici curiae (friend of the court) to assist them.

The focus has been on specific, everyday governance failures rather than broad issues. The PILs initiated include broken village roads, missing cremation grounds, garbage‑choked streets, medicine shortages, contaminated water and the lack of a playground in a residential colony. 

The Bench has treated each as a separate problem, issuing targeted directions and seeking concrete corrective steps from authorities.

In 2025, the Bench adopted the same approach in a case about a tigress known as F2 and her five cubs in Umred‑Karhandla sanctuary. It criticised drivers, guides and the Forest Department for their slow response after tourist vehicles blocked the animals. The Court also sought an affidavit on the action taken.

A 2025 case on “dignity in death”, prompted by reports that 204 Nagpur villages lacked cremation facilities, led to a State policy change. The Maharashtra government issued a February 2025 resolution prioritising village infrastructure funds for villages with functional cremation or burial grounds.

In another 2025 matter on 22 solar‑powered villages in Dharni with failing systems, the Bench converted a petition by MP Balwant Wankhade into a suo motu PIL. The Court made it clear that while it did not want every local political grievance brought as a PIL, it would still treat the collapse of basic solar infrastructure as a wider public issue.

In 2026, the Court has focused on health, water, garbage and the environment.

Key cases include a PIL on severe faculty shortage at Nagpur All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), where 137 of 373 posts are vacant and affecting patient care.

It has also heard a matter on 11 tiger deaths in Maharashtra in January and repeated flooding in Chandrapur due to a non‑functional bund.

The Bench further initiated a PIL on Nagpur’s defunct traffic signals. Only 10 of 171 upgraded signals are functional.

Additionally, the Court is scrutinising mining and forest areas. It is examining the State's decision to permit iron ore mining in the Tadoba‑Andhari landscape, alongside a case on the Lohardongri opencast mine.

In 2026, other cases in Nagpur have included medicine shortages at the Government Mental Hospital due to centralised purchasing and large‑scale, uncompensated tree felling on the “London Street” Road.

The Court has been sharply critical of Nagpur’s cleanliness and water quality. It has increasingly used suo motu PIL cases to address civic and environmental issues.

In February, it initiated a PIL over uncollected garbage. The judges cited the failure of the “Clean Nagpur” slogan despite the Nagpur Municipal Corporation spending about ₹100 crore annually on waste collection.

On February 26, it took up the issue of contaminated drinking water after the civic body admitted to dirty water supply in nearly 50 localities, following reports of illness.

On March 9, 2026, the Court extended its focus to heritage. It converted reports on “invaluable prehistoric archaeological sites” in Bhatala and Mowad villages of Chandrapur district into a suo motu PIL. The order recognised their importance to the prehistoric cultural landscape of central India.

The Bench has also tried to protect petitioners in sensitive cases. In a quartzite mining irregularity matter, after the petitioner sought to withdraw citing threats, the Bench allowed the withdrawal but converted the case into a PIL to keep the issue alive.

The Court has also taken up a case on rising human–wildlife conflict and tiger attacks in Pench Tiger Reserve, questioning the administration’s prioritisation of tourism.

In urban planning, it broadened a report on a lack of playground land in Hindustan Colony into a city‑wide PIL seeking a review of open spaces across Nagpur.

The surge in suo motu PILs underscores the Nagpur Bench’s sustained emphasis on enforcing civic responsibility through judicial action.

By turning news reports into formal cases, the Court has used the scope of PIL to address everyday governance failures across the region.

There are concerns that the Court's use of PIL jurisdiction amounts to interference into the executive domain. On the other side of the coin, the Court's endeavour seems to have promoted the authorities to take action it otherwise hasn't.