Expressing frustration over a petitioner’s demand for cycle tracks when basic public utility services are in dire need of fulfilment the Supreme Court observed that "People don't get water and housing. And we are day-dreaming talking about cycle tracks!" The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka andJustice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to entertain the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), and dismissed the same reprimanding the petitioner, who sought directions to mandate separate cycling tracks in all cities dismissed the plea.

Questioning the practicality of the PIL, when states were struggling to provide even essential services like shelter, medical care, and sanitation the court stated that such reliefs can never be granted. The petitioner argued that municipal and town-planning laws already mandate cycle tracks and that nearly 60% of road users rely on non-motorized transport, including pedestrians and cyclists. He further stated that nearly 50% of road accident victims fall within this category. However, the court expressed scepticismabout the feasibility of implementing cycle tracks on a nationwide scale.

The bench also pointed out that while courts have recognized footpaths as a fundamental right under Article 21, cycle tracks are a different issue. While expressing their disapproval to establish guidelines with all-India relevance, the bench noted that having cycle tracks in cities like Pune,will lead to huge traffic congestion, and if they wanted to construct new cycle tracks, lakhs of houses will have to be demolished.

The court clarified that the issue of footpaths and pavements has already been addressed by various High Courts, recognizing them as a fundamental right. However, cycle tracks should be a matter for individual states to decide, considering local infrastructure constraints. In conclusion, the bench dismissed the PIL, directing the petitioner to approach respective High Courts.

Source: NEWS

Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 279/2022