Gujarat HC Orders Traffic Survey, Removes Amicus in Tense Contempt Hearing

Ahmedabad, India – In a hearing marked by sharp judicial observations and procedural friction, the Gujarat High Court has directed the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) to conduct a comprehensive survey of traffic violations on major Ahmedabad roads. The order came during a contentious hearing of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a 2017 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) order on traffic management. In a notable development, the Division Bench also relieved the appointed amicus curiae from the matter following heated exchanges with counsel for the parties.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice L.S. Pirzada, is presiding over a 2019 contempt plea in the case of MUSTAK HUSSAIN MEHNDI HUSSAIN KADRI v/s JAGADIP NARAYAN SINGH, IAS & ANR. The hearing on October 15 brought to the forefront the judiciary's growing impatience with persistent traffic indiscipline and the complex procedural dynamics of contempt jurisdiction.

Judicial Scrutiny and Personal Observation

The court's frustration with the on-ground situation was palpable, underscored by Justice Supehia's personal anecdotes. Expressing deep concern over the unabated menace of wrong-side driving and signal violations, particularly by two-wheeler riders, the judge revealed his own firsthand observations.

"So far as four wheelers are concerned we have noticed wrong side driving is reduced to some extent. But two wheelers it is still continuing," Justice Supehia orally remarked. "I personally calculated. During 180 mins there were 7 violations by two wheelers. I have also noticed that number plates are also camouflaged by them... TRB (traffic brigade) jawans are there but they don't get the opportunity to note down the numbers because of camouflage. That was in one signal, imagine what is happening in Ahmedabad."

This direct, empirical observation from a sitting judge highlighted the court's hands-on approach and lent significant weight to its concerns. The bench lamented the public's attitude, suggesting a perception that breaking traffic laws is a "matter of right." While acknowledging the dedication of the Traffic Brigade jawans, the court pointed to systemic issues hampering effective enforcement.

In response, the state's counsel, G.S. Virk, assured the court that the authorities would "target" the issue. He submitted that measures like vehicle detention had improved "overall road sensibility," citing smoother traffic flow during the Navratri festival and after a recent major event. However, the court remained focused on the need for more robust and systemic solutions.

A Novel Directive: The GSLSA Survey

Moving beyond mere admonishment, the High Court issued a specific and novel directive aimed at gathering empirical data. The bench ordered the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) to conduct a detailed survey and prepare a report on several key arterial roads in Ahmedabad, including S.G. Highway, C.G. Road, and Judges Bungalow Road.

The GSLSA's mandate is to document:

- Illegal parking on public roads.

- Haphazard parking adjacent to shopping centers, restaurants, and event venues.

- The prevalence of wrong-lane driving.

This move is legally significant as it leverages the institutional framework of the Legal Services Authority—typically associated with legal aid and Lok Adalats—for a fact-finding mission in a contempt proceeding. The survey is scheduled to be conducted post-Diwali, from October 29 to November 7, with the matter next listed for November 12.

The court further suggested that the state government may need to formulate a clear policy for commercial establishments like eateries, whose patrons often occupy a significant portion of public roads for parking, thereby obstructing traffic flow.

The Amicus Curiae Controversy

The hearing took a dramatic turn over the role of the amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna. Mr. Tanna submitted that the traffic situation had not improved but "deteriorated," arguing that the respondent authorities were in contempt and had failed to demonstrate how they proposed to purge it. He contended that violators must be heavily punished under the Motor Vehicles Act and pointed to unimplemented Supreme Court directions on road safety.

However, his vehement submissions led to what the court described as an "unwanted altercation" with the applicant's counsel, Amit Panchal, and the state's counsel. Mr. Panchal strongly opposed the continued involvement of an amicus, arguing that contempt jurisdiction is a matter strictly between the court, the applicant, and the alleged contemnor, and that the present matter was not a PIL where an amicus's role is more common. He asserted that the amicus repeatedly claimed non-compliance despite the state's demonstrable efforts.

Agreeing with the opposition, the court noted that status reports filed by the authorities did reveal that "effective measures" were being taken. Finding merit in the arguments against the amicus's role in this specific procedural context, the court issued a decisive order.

"Hence we relieve the amicus from further addressing the court in the present matter and if required his assistance will be taken by this court," the bench dictated in its order.

This decision underscores a fine legal point regarding the scope of an amicus curiae's role in contempt proceedings versus a broader PIL. While an amicus is appointed to assist the court, their role can become contentious when it conflicts with the positions of the primary parties in an adversarial setting, particularly in a quasi-criminal jurisdiction like contempt. The court's decision to relieve Mr. Tanna, while keeping the door open for future assistance, reflects a pragmatic choice to de-escalate courtroom friction and focus on the submissions of the direct parties.

Legal Implications and Way Forward

The Gujarat High Court's latest orders carry several important legal implications:

• Judicial Innovation in Fact-Finding: Utilizing the GSLSA for an evidence-gathering survey is an innovative approach. It provides the court with an independent, quasi-judicial report, moving beyond reliance solely on affidavits from state authorities.
• Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction: The case highlights the expansive nature of contempt proceedings stemming from PILs, where the court continues its supervisory role to ensure long-term compliance, effectively blurring the lines between the original PIL and the subsequent contempt plea.
• The Role of the Amicus: The removal of the amicus curiae serves as a cautionary tale for legal practitioners about the defined boundaries of their roles. It affirms that in a contempt action, the primary focus remains on the alleged contemnor's compliance with specific orders, a narrower scope than the free-ranging inquiry of a PIL.
• Policy-Making through Litigation: The court's nudge towards creating a parking policy for eateries is a classic example of catalytic judicial intervention, where court proceedings prompt executive action and policy formulation.

As Ahmedabad awaits the GSLSA's post-Diwali survey, the legal and administrative communities will be watching closely. The report's findings will likely shape the next phase of this long-standing litigation and could set a precedent for how courts monitor and enforce compliance with their orders on civic issues. The case remains a critical barometer of the judiciary's role in compelling executive accountability for public safety and order.