SUPREME COURT REJECTS PIL FOR CYCLE TRACKS, CITES BASIC NEEDS PRIORITY:

On Monday, February 10, the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition requesting the establishment of separate cycling tracks in all cities, citing concerns about feasibility, especially when governments are struggling to provide essential services such as shelter and hospitals.

At the outset, the bench, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, objected to the broad scope of the requests made 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 argued that municipal and town-planning laws mandate dedicated cycle tracks. Justice Abhay S. Oka noted that courts have issued several directives regarding footpaths, recognizing them as a fundamental right for all citizens. However, he emphasized that mandatory cycle tracks are not practical in Indian conditions.

In response, the petitioner clarified that he was seeking directions for "non-motorized transport ways" to accommodate both pedestrians and cyclists, asserting that such infrastructure would benefit nearly 60% of road users, particularly the urban poor. He also highlighted that nearly 50% of road accident victims are pedestrians and cyclists.

Expressing reluctance to issue directives with nationwide applicability, Justice Oka remarked, "These matters should be addressed by High Courts. Some states have hilly terrains—how can cycling tracks be implemented there? This is an overly ambitious demand for a PIL."

The petitioner's counsel referred to Pune as an example, noting that it would be familiar to Justice Oka. He pointed out that despite various plans proposing cycle tracks, none had been implemented. In response, Justice Oka stated “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.

In its order, the bench stated that it did not question the petitioner's bona fides and recognized the significance of the issue.

“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 noted that the petitioner’s request for the construction of footpaths and pavements had already been addressed through various High Court rulings, which recognized them as part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Regarding cycle tracks, the bench stated that the matter is best handled by the respective High Courts, as conditions vary across states. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Courts. The bench also directed states to continue their ongoing efforts in this regard. 

Additionally, the bench mentioned that it was addressing the issue of road safety in a separate case.