Shreya Gupta
On 10th February 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking the construction of separate cycle tracks across India, emphasizing that Indian cities cannot be compared with European countries like the Netherlands.
A Bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan termed such a demand as “daydreaming” they said that it is a misplacement of priorities and that many people in India still lack access to basic housing and primary healthcare facilities. The Court observed that states struggle to provide even fundamental necessities to slum dwellers, making the demand for dedicated cycle tracks impractical. Justice Oka pointed out that issues such as affordable housing, basic medical treatment, education, sanitation, and waste management are far more pressing concerns for Indian cities. While considering the prayer for footpaths, the Court noted that various High Courts had already ruled that state authorities are responsible for ensuring pavements remain in a reasonably good condition. Given the diverse challenges faced by different states, including those with hilly terrain or large tribal populations, the Supreme Court deemed it more appropriate for individual High Courts to address these concerns rather than issuing a nationwide directive. As a result, the petition was dismissed with the liberty to approach the respective High Courts. However, the Court directed state governments to continue the efforts they had already initiated regarding footpaths and cycle tracks.
Justice Oka further highlighted that many major cities suffer from a severe lack of clean drinking water and the citizens often receive contaminated water. He also mentioned the decline of municipal and government schools, questioning the prioritization of cycle tracks over these fundamental issues. While the petitioners argued that policies for footpaths and cycle tracks already existed but were not being implemented, the Court remained unconvinced. The Bench noted the practical challenges of constructing cycle tracks in congested cities like Pune, where such measures could lead to massive traffic congestion or even require the demolition of thousands of houses.
The Court also cited a Bombay High Court judgment highlighting the severe housing crisis in Mumbai, where 26% of police constables are forced to live in slums. Recognizing the importance of the issues raised by the petitioner but unwilling to entertain the plea at the national level, the Supreme Court ruled that High Courts should handle such matters based on local conditions. The Court ultimately refused to intervene and stressed that priority should be given to implementing Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, rather than focusing on cycle tracks when essential human needs remain unfulfilled.
Case Title: Davinder Singh Nagi v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 279/2022
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan