The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) demanding the establishment of dedicated cycle tracks across India, emphasizing that the country’s priorities lie elsewhere, particularly in addressing the basic needs of housing and healthcare.
The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, critiqued the plea as an instance of “daydreaming,” pointing out the stark contrast between the ground realities in Indian cities and the situation in European nations like the Netherlands, which are renowned for their cycling infrastructure.
Justice Oka highlighted the severe conditions in which many Indians live, especially in urban slums, and the financial constraints faced by state governments in providing basic amenities. “States cannot afford to give affordable housing and now we are daydreaming that when people don’t have elementary facilities of residence and basic facilities of medical treatment … we are daydreaming by saying that every city should have cycling tracks,” he remarked during the hearing.
The court acknowledged the existing challenges in major Indian cities, including the provision of affordable housing, primary healthcare, and education, as well as sanitation and waste management. These issues, the judges argued, take precedence over the construction of cycle tracks.
While the court refused to entertain the plea, it granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the High Courts, which may be better positioned to address these concerns locally. The court noted that different states face unique challenges, such as geographical constraints and diverse demographic compositions, which can impact the feasibility and prioritization of infrastructure projects like cycle tracks.
Furthermore, the court urged state governments to continue their efforts to improve footpath and pavement conditions, acknowledging that some High Courts have already mandated that state authorities maintain them in good order.
Despite the dismissal of the PIL, the justices urged a focus on more pressing constitutional obligations, like ensuring access to clean water and functional educational institutions, as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that plans for cycle tracks and footpaths were already devised but faced implementation hurdles, underscoring the popularity and environmental benefits of cycling, particularly among urban populations. However, the court remained unmoved, citing practical difficulties such as potential traffic congestion and the need for extensive urban restructuring, which could lead to the demolition of numerous homes.
The hearing concluded with the court recognizing the petitioner’s good intentions but reiterating the need to prioritize fundamental needs over infrastructural enhancements like cycle tracks.
