Judicial Oversight and Enforcement
Subject : Litigation - Contempt of Court
Ahmedabad, Gujarat – The Gujarat High Court, while hearing a contempt petition concerning the non-compliance of its 2017 orders on traffic management, has directed the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) to conduct a detailed survey on traffic violations across key roads in Ahmedabad. The proceedings took a dramatic turn as the division bench, citing "unwanted altercation," relieved the amicus curiae from the case, raising procedural questions about the role of a court-appointed friend in contempt jurisdiction.
A division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice L.S. Pirzada was presiding over a 2019 contempt plea filed by Mustak Hussain Mehndi Hussain Kadri against state authorities for failing to implement directions issued in a 2017 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at curbing illegal parking and traffic chaos in Ahmedabad.
The hearing was marked by strong oral observations from the bench, with Justice Supehia expressing personal concern over the unabated menace of wrong-side driving, particularly by two-wheelers. He noted a discernible, albeit slight, improvement in compliance by four-wheeler drivers but highlighted the persistent disregard for rules by scooter and motorcycle riders.
"I personally calculated. During 180 minutes, there were seven violations by two-wheelers," Justice Supehia remarked, recounting his observation at a single traffic signal. "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."
The judge lamented the public attitude, stating, "We have seen the plight of the jawans who are there. They are dedicated. But look at the public, they think as a matter of right they can break the traffic laws."
In response, Government Pleader 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," particularly during the recent Navratri festival, and similar plans were in place for Diwali.
Finding the state's assurances insufficient on their own, the court issued a formal directive to the GSLSA. The authority has been tasked with conducting a survey and preparing a comprehensive report on illegal parking, haphazard parking near commercial establishments, and wrong-lane driving.
The survey is mandated to cover several arterial roads in Ahmedabad, including:
- SG Highway
- CG Road
- Judges Bungalow Road
- The stretch from Navrangpura Cross Road to the Gujarat High Court complex
- The road from Vadaj Circle towards Dilli Darwaza (Dudheshwar Road)
The court specified that the survey should be conducted post-Diwali, between October 29 and November 7. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 12, by which time the report is to be submitted and shared with all parties.
The bench also orally suggested that the government consider formulating a policy for eateries to manage parking, noting that vehicles parked by patrons often encroach upon a significant portion of the road, obstructing traffic flow.
The hearing's most significant legal development was the court's decision to relieve Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna from his role as amicus curiae. The move followed what the court described as an "unwanted altercation" between Mr. Tanna and the counsels for the petitioner and the state.
Mr. Tanna had vehemently argued that the traffic situation had not improved but "deteriorated," asserting that the respondent authorities were in contempt and had not proposed how they intended to purge it. Citing a Supreme Court order, he contended that violations must be punished heavily under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the state had failed to comply with Apex Court directions since 2016.
However, Advocate Amit Panchal, counsel for the original contempt petitioner, strongly opposed the submissions and the very presence of an amicus in the proceedings. He argued that a contempt plea is a matter strictly between the contemnor and the applicant, not a PIL where an amicus is typically appointed. He further submitted that the amicus had repeatedly alleged non-compliance despite the authorities making and reporting genuine efforts.
The government pleader echoed this opposition, stating that actions were being taken as per court directions and status reports were being filed timely.
Taking cognizance of the friction and the arguments presented, the bench dictated in its order that it did not agree with the amicus's suggestion that no action had been taken by the authorities. Citing the "unwanted altercation" and the opposition from the other counsels, the court ordered:
"...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 court further justified its decision by noting that the Supreme Court is already seized of the broader issues highlighted by the amicus, such as helmet use and wrongful lane driving, and that the present contempt petition emanates from specific directions of a coordinate bench, which the authorities are already undertaking to implement.
This decision has sparked discussion in legal circles about the precise role and limitations of an amicus curiae in contempt proceedings, especially when their assessment of compliance conflicts with that of the primary petitioner and the court's own observations of the state's reported efforts. While the court has kept the door open for future assistance, the removal underscores the contentious nature of enforcing judicial orders in matters of public administration and the delicate procedural balance within contempt jurisdiction.
#ContemptOfCourt #TrafficLaw #JudicialOversight
Stranger Directly Affected by Interim Order Entitled to Impleadment in Writ Proceedings: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Dismissal from BSF Valid Without Security Force Court Trial if Inexpedient Due to Civilians Involved: Calcutta HC
10 Apr 2026
Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Runs From FIR Filing Date, Not Cognizance: Supreme Court
10 Apr 2026
Higher DA Enhancement for Serving Employees Than DR for Pensioners Violates Article 14: Supreme Court
11 Apr 2026
Broad Daylight Murder of Senior Lawyer in Mirzapur
11 Apr 2026
SC Justice Amanullah: Don't Blame Judges for Pendency
11 Apr 2026
Varanasi Court Seeks Police Report on Kishwar Defamation
11 Apr 2026
Advocate Cannot Stall Execution Over Unpaid Fees or Blackmail Client: Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Costs
11 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Slams MP, Rajasthan Over Illegal Sand Mining
14 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.