2019 Supreme(SC) 1045
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
M.C. Mehta – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985
Decided on : 02-09-2019
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mrs. Snidha Mehra, Mr. S. S. Rebello, Mr. B. V. Balram Das, Mr. R.S. Gerwal, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Ms. Meenu Sethi, Mr. R. K. Singh, Ms. Priya Puri, Mr. Yati Sharma, Ms. Srishti Sharma, Mr. Ranjay Dubey, Mr. Anil Grover, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mr. Shakti Singh, Applicant-in-person, Petitioner-in-person Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mr. P. K. Jain, Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Pramod Dayal, Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Mrs. Priya Puri, Mr. R. P. Gupta, Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. Rakesh Kumar-i, M/S. Parekh & Co., Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Mr. Satya Mitra, Ms. Nandini Gidwaney, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Mr. Pavan Kumar, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Mr. Parijat Sinha, Mr. V. K. Verma, Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Mr. Hardeep Singh Anand, Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh, M/S. S. Narain & Co., Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Praveen Swarup, Mr. Sudhir Mendiratta, Dr. Monika Gusain, M/S. Saharya & Co., Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Mr. Shri Narain, Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. Sandeep Narain, Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Mr. Ajit Pudussery, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Bakshi, Mr. G. Prakash, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Mr. T. V. Ratnam, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. S. S. Shroff, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Mr. Ravindra Bana, Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Mr. Surya Kant, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. S. K. Bhattacharya, Mr. Sarvam Ritam Khare, Mr. Ashok Mathur, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, Mr. Munawwar Naseem, Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. M. P. Devanath, Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Ms. Surabhi Sanchita, Ms. Divya Roy, Mr. Vivek Gupta, Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Garima Prashad, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Mr. Gaurav, Adv
The State has a constitutional mandate to ensure unobstructed public spaces and orderly urban development; consequently, authorities must institute long-term parking infrastructure policies and strictly prohibit the encroachment of pedestrian pathways to uphold the right to a dignified and safe living environment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 117, 127 and 138 - Urban planning and traffic management - Parking deficiency in residential, institutional and commercial zones - Responsibility of the State to ensure adequate infrastructure and clear thoroughfares - Requirement for assessment of long-term parking needs for new constructions - Absolute prohibition on encroachment of public pedestrian pathways. (Paras 1, 11, 28)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to life includes the right to a dignified, uncluttered, and orderly urban environment - Effective parking management essential to reduce pollution, crime, and public hazards. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The litigation originated from the severe crisis of rising vehicle ownership outstripping existing urban infrastructure. Residential areas witnessed the conversion of private garages for commercial or residential use, leading to increased spillover of vehicles onto public roads and pedestrian thoroughfares. The court examined the failure of local authorities to integrate parking and mass transportation planning, resulting in obstruction of emergency services and degradation of living conditions.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the State holds a duty to ensure that roads remain free from obstruction and that adequate parking is developed through comprehensive planning. It emphasized that pedestrian pathways must remain strictly for public use and that encroachment by private individuals for security structures or extensions is unlawful. The court directed that building permissions must be conditioned upon a 25-year projection of parking requirements.
Issues: The main issues addressed were the systemic failure to provide adequate public parking infrastructure, the unauthorized encroachment of public footpaths, and the lack of integrated planning for parking in multi-purpose urban zones.
Ratio Decidendi: Urban infrastructure planning must prioritize the sustainability of public spaces and pedestrian rights over private vehicle storage, necessitating statutory regimes that mandate parking assessments for future developments and impose strict penalties, including the potential withdrawal of municipal services, for encroachment on public pathways.
Result: Directions issued to authorities to clear all pavement encroachments, mandate parking assessments in building permits, and implement automated parking and guidance systems to optimize space utilization.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. urbanization and the crisis of parking demand. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. policy gaps in public infrastructure and transport management. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. mandatory statutory assessment for long-term parking needs. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. municipal regulatory framework and pilot parking initiatives. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. protection of public space and emergency access lanes. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. technical optimization of various parking infrastructure models. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. state accountability and integration of smart technology. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. judicial directions for administrative enforcement. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
ORDER :
Deepak Gupta, J.
Modern conveniences bring with them their own problems. One of the most important conveniences of the industrial age is motor transport. This has brought with it many problems but we may highlight only two: (1) pollution and (2) parking space. It is the problem of parking which we seek to address in this order.
2. A vehicle, whether be it a motor car, bus, three-wheeler, scooter or a small scooty, transports one or more individuals from one place to the other. Once passengers/occupants of the vehicles have been taken to their destination, the vehicle in question has to be parked. This requires a lot of space, a lot of planning, a lot of infrastructure and a lot of money. The tendency of individuals is to save as much money as possible and not pay anything for parking.
3. Till the late 1970s motor cars were the prerogative of the rich. Most people who could afford motor cars lived in houses with driveways and garages. But as the economy of the country has improved and the earning capacity of people has risen there are more and more vehicles on the road. At the same time due to paucity of space and the astronomical rise in land prices the size of dwelling houses has become smaller and smaller. The biggest casualty in this conflict between increasing number of cars and dwindling availability of land is “parking space” for vehicles. Even in those houses which had garages, these were converted to rooms utilised for other purposes. Then cars started getting parked in driveways but as the number of members of the households expanded, from driveways the cars have now spilled over to the roads outside the house. This is not the only problem. The municipal authorities, for reasons best known to them, without carrying out any study with regard to the carrying capacity of the colonies/areas/towns/cities/metropolises are permitting additional constructions including additional floors in these colonies. Setbacks are being decreased or abolished. The constructed area is rising vertically and horizontally. Resultantly where, about 50 years ago, there was a single storey house with one family and one car, there is now a four storey-structure, if not higher with may be 8 flats and 16 cars if not more. This has created many problems and one of the most serious problems is that of parking.
4. The Golden Rule is “Love thy neighbour”. Today the social fabric of neighbourhoods is being torn asunder because of fights over this most petty issue of parking of vehicles. Therefore, we feel there is a need to pass a detailed order on a mundane issue like parking because this may impact town planning. Proper parking policies will also lead to less pollution, less crime and a better and more dignified life which every citizen is entitled to under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. Before dealing with the issue of parking, we have to note that there is an abject failure on the part of the government and the authorities to provide adequate public transport to the citizens of the country. Individual vehicles are owned by about 2% of the population. However, this 2% of the population wants to monopolise all the resources and infrastructure with regard to transportation. It is only in the last two decades that cities have moved towards introducing schemes fo
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
