Gujarat High Court Orders Traffic Survey Amidst Contempt Hearing, Relieves Amicus Curiae Following Altercation

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.

Judicial Concern and Personal Observations

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.

Directive for GSLSA Survey

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 Removal of the Amicus Curiae: A Procedural Flashpoint

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.