1. Public interest litigation highlighting chaotic traffic situation in Hazaribagh city. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. S. Sonak, CJ, Rajesh Shankar, J
Achyt Swaroop Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P. (PIL) No. 4534 of 2021
Important Points
The right to a safe urban environment and unencroached footpaths is integral to Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution; municipal bodies cannot cite financial constraints to avoid performing public duties related to civil safety and traffic management.
Subject
Civil - Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
Act Referred
Constitution of India: Art.19(1)(d), Art.21
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2012: S.606
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2012: S.606
Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000
Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 - Right to a clean, dignified, and reasonably safe urban life is an integral facet of the right to life; freedom of movement for pedestrians and motorists is protected under Article 19. The constitutional and statutory framework obliges municipal and state authorities to ensure effective traffic management.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2012 - Section 606; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Statutory duties regarding traffic safety, removal of encroachments, and regulation of noise cannot be avoided by citing financial stringency or administrative inconvenience.
Facts of the case:
This public interest litigation was filed in 2021 highlighting the chaotic traffic situation in Hazaribagh, characterized by a lack of traffic lights, non-functional CCTVs, inadequate parking, and widespread encroachment on footpaths. A court-appointed Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the chaotic state of traffic and the deficit of personnel. While the respondents eventually implemented some measures, including increasing traffic police strength and contracting for an Automated Traffic Light Management System, the petitioner alleged continued laxity in implementation.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while some remedial steps were taken, they were insufficient. It reaffirmed that the right to walk on unencroached footpaths is a fundamental right and that public authorities are constitutionally mandated to maintain pedestrian infrastructure and ensure civic safety, regardless of financial constraints.
Issues: Whether the failure of authorities to manage traffic and clear encroachments in Hazaribagh violates the fundamental rights of citizens and whether financial constraints can justify such failure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a safe urban environment is integral to Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. Following the precedent in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, the court held that a plea of lack of finances cannot be used to abdicate public duties related to civil safety and sanitation. Street vending must be harmoniously co-exist with motorable carriageways and walkable footpaths.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with specific directions for traffic signal installation, CCTV repair, deployment charts, and encroachment removal.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2012 - Section 606; Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014; Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Statutory duties regarding traffic safety, removal of encroachments, and regulation of noise cannot be avoided by citing financial stringency or administrative inconvenience.
Facts of the case:
This public interest litigation was filed in 2021 highlighting the chaotic traffic situation in Hazaribagh, characterized by a lack of traffic lights, non-functional CCTVs, inadequate parking, and widespread encroachment on footpaths. A court-appointed Advocate Commissioner's report confirmed the chaotic state of traffic and the deficit of personnel. While the respondents eventually implemented some measures, including increasing traffic police strength and contracting for an Automated Traffic Light Management System, the petitioner alleged continued laxity in implementation.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while some remedial steps were taken, they were insufficient. It reaffirmed that the right to walk on unencroached footpaths is a fundamental right and that public authorities are constitutionally mandated to maintain pedestrian infrastructure and ensure civic safety, regardless of financial constraints.
Issues: Whether the failure of authorities to manage traffic and clear encroachments in Hazaribagh violates the fundamental rights of citizens and whether financial constraints can justify such failure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a safe urban environment is integral to Articles 19(1)(d) and 21. Following the precedent in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, the court held that a plea of lack of finances cannot be used to abdicate public duties related to civil safety and sanitation. Street vending must be harmoniously co-exist with motorable carriageways and walkable footpaths.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with specific directions for traffic signal installation, CCTV repair, deployment charts, and encroachment removal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- environmental law
- property law and land use
- motor vehicle law
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: Vibhor Mayank, Ranjit Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Party-in-Person
For the Respondents: Vibhor Mayank, Ranjit Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleged inaction on traffic management; respondents initially denied but later blamed each other. (Para 3 , 9 )
3. Court noted initial denial by respondents, blame-game between authorities, and upheld right to safe urban life under Article 21. (Para 5 , 9 , 20 )
4. Right to safe urban life under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 imposes duty on authorities to manage traffic, regardless of financial constraints. (Para 20 , 22 )
5. Writ petition disposed of with comprehensive directions for traffic management, CCTV integration, and compliance affidavits. (Para 29 , 31 , 32 )
6. What constitutional rights are engaged by chaotic traffic management?
The right to a clean, dignified, and safe urban life under Article 21 and freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) are engaged. (Para 20 )
7. Can financial stringency be a valid defence for failing to manage traffic?
No, following Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand, lack of finances cannot be a plea to discharge public duties related to civic safety. (Para 22 )
8. What are the duties of authorities regarding footpaths and street vendors?
Footpaths must be kept free of encroachment and unauthorized parking; street vending must harmoniously coexist with pedestrian infrastructure as per Street Vendors Act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
9. What is the legal framework for regulating noise pollution from traffic?
The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 must be enforced, including notifying silence zones around courts, hospitals, and schools. (Para 21 , 29 )
10. Are personal compliance affidavits required from senior officials for court directions?
Yes, the Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, and Municipal Commissioner must file personal compliance affidavits, not by subordinate officers. (Para 28 , 29 )
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.
1. Heard the petitioner, who appears in person, and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present writ petition, instituted in public interest, highlights the chaotic traffic situation at Hazaribagh and seeks writs, orders and directions requiring the respondent authorities to formulate and implement effective measures for traffic regulations and civic management within a time-bound schedule.
3. The petitioner has referred to the absence of any traffic-light monitoring system, CCTV, and other surveillance measures; the lack of reasonable parking facilities; encroachments on public footpaths; and several other issues leading to a chaotic traffic situation. The petitioner has pointed out that the respondents are taking no steps to redress the situation, and that such sustained inaction on their part directly infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
4. The petitioner has also cited instances of fatal collisions at the Barkagaon More and Kargil Chowk, which are crowded traffic intersections in Hazaribagh. The petitioner has also cited instances of injuries to pedestrians or those involved in vehicular accidents, on account of unmanaged traffic. Against this background, the petitioner has sought several directions, which, according to the petitioner, need to be issued if the traffic situation in Hazaribagh is to improve.
5. This petition was instituted in 2021, and since then a series of orders have been made by Coordinate Benches and even by this Bench, mainly to direct the respondents to adopt reasonable steps to improve the situation.
6. At the outset, the respondents were in denial mode and chose to contest the factual assertions made by the petitioner. By order dated 11.07.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court appointed Mr Prashant Pallav, who was then an Advocate practising before this Court (and was later appointed as learned A.S.G.I.), as an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the City and submit a comprehensive report. Mr Pallav submitted his comprehensive report, which was duly taken on record.
7. Mr Pallav's report, by and large, confirms the chaotic traffic situation at Hazaribagh. The report also noted the conspicuous absence of traffic personnel at several key intersections and junctions, and the lack of automatic traffic signals. The report also noted that although CCTVs were installed in some places, they were largely non-functional. The report also referred to widespread haphazard parking and a lackadaisical attitude towards enforcing traffic rules, such as wearing helmets and seatbelts. The report also referred to a severe deficit of police and traffic personnel for maintaining orderly traffic at Hazaribagh.
8. The Coordinate Benches of this Court directed the respondents to respond to Mr Pallav's report. The respondents accordingly filed affidavits assuring the Court that remedial measures would be taken. However, the remedial measures taken have addressed only some of the aspects highlighted in this petition.
9. The Police authorities and the Municipal authorities, who are impleaded as respondents in this petition, tried, through their affidavits, to pass the blame for this chaotic traffic situation to each other. For example, State Administration officials, such as the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, asserted that parking issues are to be handled by the Hazaribagh Municipal Corporation officials. The Corporation officials complained about a lack of effective assistance from the police. Thus, whilst the chaotic traffic situation at Hazaribagh could not be denied, there was a blame game between various officials and agencies, rendering the remedies a casualty.
10. The Coordinate Benches of this Court were constrained to issue further orders inter alia for coordination between the State Administration and the Municipal authorities at Hazaribagh. Under Court orders, meetings were directed to be held involving all stakeholders so that
