High Court Calls For Rigorous Enforcement Of Prohibitions On Plying Of Slow Moving Vehicles Including 2-Wheelers On Expressways In Delhi

The Delhi High Court has called for rigorous enforcement of existing prohibitions relating to the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, within the territorial confines of the national capital.

A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula said that regular monitoring and prompt corrective actions should be taken where deviations from the prescribed norms are observed.

“Respondent No. 3 [DCP (Traffic), South-West District, New Delhi] is directed to ensure rigorous enforcement of existing prohibitions discussed above pertaining to the movement of slow- moving vehicles on expressways, especially within the territorial confines of the NCT of Delhi,” the court directed.

The bench was dealing with a PIL moved by one Yuvraj Francis concerning the issue of slow-moving vehicles plying on the expressways which are otherwise prohibited.

The petitioner, who has been commuting on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway since 2011, sought directions against the authorities for the failure to prevent slow moving vehicles, such as two or three wheelers as well as tractors, on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway and other similar expressways.

The bench observed that the management of traffic, including the enforcement of speed limits and vehicle types, traditionally resides with the executive.

However, it added that the judiciary’s role is not to be minimized or eclipsed, especially when citizens invoke their right to a safer transit environment, “a right intrinsically linked to the broader right to life and personal liberty.”

The court said that the communication issued by NHAI last year to DCP (Traffic) of New Delhi’s South-West District and Gurugram’s Sushant Lok painted a “revealing picture” as it acknowledged the alarming frequency of accidents attributed to the ingress of slow-moving vehicles onto the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway.

Noting that the NHAI had actively engaged with the relevant authorities urging them to reinforce and implement the standing prohibitions, the court said:

“While regulations concerning the movement of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, such as the Delhi-Meerut Expressway, are in place, it is evident that there is a gap in their practical execution. NHAI’s own acknowledgment underlines this enforcement lacuna. Consequently, effective enforcement mechanisms must be put in place by the authorities to ensure that the prescribed rules are followed, thus averting potential hazards and ensuring the safety of all road users.”

On the prayer seeking demarcation of specific lanes for slow-moving vehicles on expressways, the court observed that such a proposition is “laden with complexities.”

The court observed that the process of setting aside dedicated lanes for such vehicles on expressways is not merely a matter of administrative decision-making but is deeply entrenched in policy considerations. “Evaluating the implications of such an initiative necessitates an in-depth examination of multiple facets including feasibility, road safety implications, potential alternatives, and broader traffic management considerations. Given the multifaceted nature of this issue, it is a decision best left to the discretion of the government and the relevant departments,” the court said.

While disposing of the PIL, the court acknowledged the earnest efforts of Francis in bringing to light an issue of “immense public significance”, underscoring that road safety is an area that demands unwavering attention, and collective efforts from authorities and the public.

“We hope that the directives laid down in this judgment will pave the way for safer expressways and roads, where every user, irrespective of their mode of transportation, can travel securely and efficiently. The onus now lies on the implementing agencies to translate these directions into concrete actions on the ground,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Naman Joshi, Ms. Ritika Vohra, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, G.P. for R-1. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. Aditya Ramni, Mr. Daksh Arora and Ms. Akshita Singh, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, SC (Civil), GNCTD with Mr. Arun Panwar, Ms. Prashansa Sharma, Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Mr. Kartik Sharma and Mr. Pradyumn Rao, Advocates for R- 3 & 4

Title: YUVRAJ FRANCIS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1038

Click Here To Read Order