Gujarat High Court Orders Traffic Survey, Relieves Amicus Curiae in Contentious Contempt Hearing

Ahmedabad, Gujarat – In a notable hearing marked by judicial concern, direct observation, and procedural friction, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court has ordered a comprehensive survey into traffic violations in Ahmedabad. The court, while hearing a contempt plea for non-compliance with its 2017 orders on traffic management, also took the significant step of relieving the appointed amicus curiae following "unwanted altercations" with counsel for the parties.

The division bench, comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice L.S. Pirzada, was presiding over MUSTAK HUSSAIN MEHNDI HUSSAIN KADRI v/s JAGADIP NARAYAN SINGH, IAS & ANR. , a contempt petition stemming from an earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) aimed at curbing illegal parking and traffic chaos in the city. The proceedings on October 15 underscored the complexities of judicial oversight in civic administration and the delicate role of an amicus curiae in contempt proceedings.

Judicial Scrutiny and Personal Observation

The hearing took a compelling turn when Justice Supehia shared his personal observations on the city's traffic situation. While acknowledging that wrong-side driving by four-wheelers had "reduced to some extent," he expressed grave concern over the persistent violations by two-wheeler riders.

"I personally calculated," Justice Supehia orally remarked, detailing a specific instance. "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 highlights a proactive and hands-on approach to the issue. The court's concern was not merely abstract; it was rooted in the daily reality faced by citizens. Justice Supehia further lamented the public's attitude, stating, "look at the public, they think as a matter of right they can break the traffic laws."

In response, the state's counsel, G.S. Virk, assured the bench that the authorities would "target" the issue. He submitted that measures like detaining vehicles had improved "overall road sensibility," particularly during recent festivals, and cited efficient traffic dispersal after a major awards show as evidence of progress.

Directive for a Comprehensive Survey

Finding the need for a more structured assessment, the court issued a significant directive, tasking a statutory body with data collection. The bench ordered the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) to conduct a detailed survey on several key arterial roads in Ahmedabad, including S.G. Highway, C.G. Road, and Judges Bungalow Road.

The GSLSA's mandate is to prepare a report focusing on: 1. Illegal parking. 2. Parking on roads abutting commercial establishments like shopping centres, restaurants, and party plots. 3. Wrong-lane driving.

The survey is scheduled to be conducted post-Diwali, between October 29 and November 7, with the matter next listed for November 12. The court directed that the resulting report be supplied to all advocates involved in the case, ensuring transparency and providing a factual basis for future hearings. This delegation to a neutral legal body like the GSLSA is a strategic move to gather impartial evidence on the state of compliance.

The Contention over the Role of the Amicus Curiae

The hearing was also characterized by a significant procedural debate concerning the role and conduct of the amicus curiae , Senior Advocate Bhaskar Tanna. The term amicus curiae , meaning "friend of the court," refers to an impartial advisor appointed to assist the court on a matter of law or fact.

Mr. Tanna vehemently argued that the traffic situation had not improved but had "deteriorated," and that the respondent authorities were in contempt of the court's earlier orders. He contended that violators must be heavily punished under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the authorities had failed to "purge" their contempt. He also drew the court's attention to a Supreme Court judgment from October 7, whose directions he claimed the state had not scrupulously followed since 2016.

However, his submissions led to what the court described in its order as an "unwanted altercation" with advocate Amit Panchal, counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Virk for the state. Mr. Panchal raised a fundamental objection to the very presence of an amicus in a contempt proceeding. He argued that contempt jurisdiction is a matter strictly between the contemnor and the applicant (or the court), and not a PIL where broader assistance is typically sought. He submitted that the amicus had repeatedly alleged non-compliance, despite the authorities making demonstrable efforts.

The court ultimately sided with the objections raised by the counsel for the applicant and the state. In its dictated order, the bench noted that contrary to the amicus's suggestions, its own orders revealed that "the State authorities and Corporation authorities have been taking effective measures."

Acknowledging the opposition, the court made a decisive ruling: "...we relieve the senior advocate Mr Tanna to be amicus in the present matter in view of the opposition of learned advocate Mr. Panchal and advocate Mr Virk... if required his assistance will be taken by this court."

Legal and Procedural Implications

This development raises important questions for legal practitioners about the role of an amicus in contempt cases. While an amicus is appointed to assist, their role can become contentious if they are perceived as taking an adversarial stance, especially in a quasi-criminal proceeding like contempt. The court's decision to relieve Mr. Tanna underscores the principle that the function of an amicus is to assist, not to become a party to the dispute or to drive the litigation in a particular direction against the wishes of the primary litigants.

Furthermore, the court’s handling of the reference to the Supreme Court's directions is instructive. While acknowledging the SC's judgment, the bench noted that the apex court was already "in seisin of the issues" and had listed the matter for a compliance report in seven months. The Gujarat High Court therefore confined its focus to the contempt petition emanating from its own coordinate bench's directions, effectively delineating the scope of the present proceedings.

Finally, the court's oral suggestion to the government to consider framing a policy for parking outside eateries—where vehicles often encroach upon a significant portion of the road—signals a potential shift from mere enforcement to systemic policy reform. This hints at the judiciary's role in nudging the executive towards long-term solutions for chronic civic problems, moving beyond the punitive scope of a contempt action.

The case, scheduled for hearing on November 12, will now proceed with a new evidentiary basis provided by the GSLSA report, setting the stage for the next chapter in the judicial monitoring of Ahmedabad's traffic woes.