New Delhi, May 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday sent a strong message against the perception that the judiciary favors the wealthy, by refusing to urgently list a plea by Gujarat-based real estate company Wildwoods Resorts and Realties, and scheduling the hearing instead for January 2026.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan expressed displeasure at the manner in which the company’s case concerning a proposed resort near Gir National Park was fast-tracked for hearing despite no visible urgency.
"This impression goes that the Supreme Court is only for the rich? We won’t have it," Justice Datta remarked sharply, questioning how a matter decided by the Gujarat High Court in December 2024 was suddenly listed before the Supreme Court on May 1, even though the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed only in April 2025.
Appearing for the company, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought urgent listing, asking the Court to hear it in July. But the Bench was unrelenting.
“Mr. Rohatgi, what was the urgency? You mentioned it before the Chief Justice? It's an order from December, and you filed in April... and your matter is listed today? I want to see the mention memo your AoR moved,” Justice Datta said.
The Court made it clear that such practices give rise to public distrust in the judicial process.
“Listing should not be such that rich litigants are able to secure hearings out of turn,” the Bench observed.
When Rohatgi pressed again, the Court curtly responded: “No, in January 2026.”
The case stems from Wildwoods Resorts’ legal challenge to a decision by the State Board for Wildlife, which denied approval for the company’s proposed luxury resort near Gir National Park, citing ecological concerns.
The firm had argued that it signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Gujarat government in 2009, promising support for the venture, and had since purchased large parcels of land.
However, the Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea in December 2024, observing that the Board’s decision was backed by expert analysis and could not be substituted by judicial opinion.
The Court also noted that the MoU itself made any development contingent upon regulatory clearance.
The project had sparked controversy in 2016 over allegations that the land was acquired due to political favouritism, as the company was linked to business associates of the then Chief Minister’s daughter, a claim denied by all parties, including the State and the company.
By pushing the hearing to 2026, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial access should not appear to be driven by privilege and emphasised that “urgency” must not be defined by the influence of litigants, but by the merits of the matter.
UNI SNG RN