‘Daydreaming’ about cycle tracks in all cities when fundamental wants unmet: SC

“Go to any slum, discover out the circumstances wherein individuals are staying. States should not have cash to deal with slum dwellers, States can’t give reasonably priced housing…When folks don’t have fundamental amenities of housing and medicines, we’re daydreaming by saying that each metropolis ought to have cycle tracks,” mentioned a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan on Monday.

It refused to entertain a public curiosity litigation (PIL) in search of a directive for devoted cycle tracks throughout all main cities. The bench emphasised that such reliefs have been neither sensible nor enforceable.

“Such reliefs can by no means be granted. How is it potential? You’re treating India like a European nation the place each metropolis ought to have a cycle observe…We are able to’t evaluate India with the Netherlands,” the bench informed advocate Chaitanya Mahajan, who appeared for petitioner Davinder Singh Nagi.

Mahajan mentioned that municipal and town-planning legal guidelines mandate devoted biking tracks and that just about 50% of street accident victims are pedestrians and cyclists. He argued that “non-motorised transport methods,” together with pedestrians and cyclists, would profit about 60% of street customers, significantly the city poor.

The court docket remained unconvinced. It identified that earlier court docket rulings recognised footpaths as a elementary proper, however mandating cycle tracks throughout the nation was not viable.

“These are the issues that top courts ought to cope with, primarily based on their peculiar circumstances. Some states are in hilly terrain. How can we now have biking tracks there? It’s too tall a declare to be made in a PIL,” it mentioned.

Citing the instance of Pune, Mahajan argued that regardless of a number of plans for cycle tracks, nothing had materialised. The bench mentioned:” In case you have cycle tracks on main roads in Pune, it is going to result in large site visitors congestion. And if you wish to assemble new cycle tracks, lakhs of homes must be demolished.”

The court docket pressured that infrastructure priorities in India should concentrate on extra pressing points. “Go to a metropolis like Mumbai. The primary concern is housing. Housing and medical amenities…are the issues that ought to get precedence. At present, there’s a reported judgment of the Bombay excessive court docket saying that 26% of the police drive stays in slums as a result of they haven’t any homes.”

“Our priorities are going improper. An individual who’s incomes a wage of 20,000 — if he’s transferred to Mumbai or Pune, he must keep in slums. That’s the concern we face. And we’re speaking about haves…those that can afford to have cycle tracks in each metropolis. Finally, we now have to handle the precise priorities. Individuals don’t get clear water, municipal faculties are closing down, and we’re speaking about cycle tracks!”

In its closing order, the bench acknowledged the significance of the problem however declined to intervene at a nationwide degree. “So far as the development of cycle tracks is anxious, all main cities in India, with out exception, have problems with offering reasonably priced homes, fundamental amenities like medical remedy, and schooling at an affordable value. Aside from that, sanitation and strong waste administration are challenges confronted by all cities in India,” the order mentioned.

The bench reiterated the matter can be finest dealt with by respective excessive courts, as circumstances fluctuate throughout states. The petition was disposed of with the freedom to method excessive courts, whereas directing states to proceed their current efforts. The court docket mentioned it was already coping with street issues of safety in one other case.