Cycle-Tracks Not Priority When State Struggling To Provide Basic Needs Like Housing, Hospitals : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 10) refused to entertain a petition seeking direction to have separate cycling tracks in all cities, questioning the feasibility of such a direction when the governments were finding it difficult to even provide basic amenities like shelter and hospitals to the people.

At the outset, the bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took objection to the wide nature of prayers sought in the petition.

"Such reliefs can never be granted. How is it possible? You are treating India with a European country that every city should be having a cycle track." Justice Oka said. "We can't compare India with Netherlands," Justice Bhuyan added.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that the municipal and town-planning laws mandate dedicated cycle tracks.  

Justice Oka pointed out that the Courts have passed several directions regarding footpaths, holding them to be a fundamental right of every citizen. But mandatory cycle-tracks are not feasible in Indian conditions, he added.

The petitioner submitted that he was seeking directions for "non-motorised transport ways", which will include both pedestrians and cyclists, and claimed that this will cover about 60% of the population using roads, especially the urban poor. Nearly 50% of the road accident victims are pedestrians and cyclists, he stated.

Expressing reluctance to lay down directions having pan-India application, Justice Oka said, "These are the matters where High Courts should deal with. Some states are in hilly terrain. How can we have cycling tracks there? It is too tall a claim to be made in a PIL."

The petitioner's counsel then cited the example of Pune, saying that it would be a city familiar to Justice Oka, and said that despite various plans contemplating cycle tracks, nothing has materialised. Justice Oka replied, "If you have cycle tracks in major roads in Pune, it will lead to huge traffic congestion. And if you want to construct new cycle tracks, lakhs of houses will have to be demolished."

"Go to a city like Mumbai. The first issue is housing. Housing, medical facilities, these are the things which should get priority. Today, there is a reported judgment of the Bombay High Court saying that 26% of the Police force stay in slums, because they have no houses," Justice Oka said.

"Go to any slum, find out the conditions in which people are staying. States do not have money to take care of slum dwellers, States cannot give affordable housing. And now we are daydreaming, when people don't have basic facilities of housing and medicines, we are daydreaming by saying that every city should have cycle tracks," Justice Oka said.

"Our priorities are going wrong.  A person who is earning a salary of 20,000, if he is transferred to Mumbai or Pune, he will have to stay in slums. That is the issue we are facing. And we are talking about haves - those who can afford to have cycle tracks in every city. Ultimately, we have to give the right priorities. People don't get water, Municipal schools are closing down. And we are talking about cycle tracks!" Justice Oka stated. The petitioner said that cycles are used mostly by the poor as a necessity and the rich use them only for pleasure.

"Ultimately, we have to see whether the Supreme Court should deal with this kind of sweeping prayers," Justice Oka said.

The bench, in its order, said that it was not disputing the bona fides of the petitioner and acknowledged that the issue was important.

"As far as construction of cycle tracks are concerned, all major cities in India, without exception, have issue of providing affordable houses, issue of providing basic facilities like medical treatment, education at a reasonable cost. Apart from that, issue of sanitation and solid waste management are issues faced by all cities in India," the bench observed in its order.

The bench further observed that the other prayer sought by the petitioner - construction of footpaths/pavements- has already been addressed by the orders passed by various High Courts, which have held that footpaths/pavements are a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench observed that the issue of cycle tracks is best addressed by the respective High Courts as the conditions in each state are different. The petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Courts. The bench also directed the States to continue the efforts which have already been taken.

The bench also observed that it was dealing with the issue of road safety in another case.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 279/2022

Case Title – Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India

Click Here To Read/Download Order