Supreme Court Judges Jokingly Threaten Sit-In Protest Over Pedestrian Safety Near Delhi High Court
New Delhi, October 20: A Supreme Court bench has jokingly threatened to stage a sit-in protest at the main entrance of the Delhi High Court if authorities fail to provide a foot overbridge and safe pedestrian crossing facilities near the court premises by November 25, 2026.
The remarks were made by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan while hearing a matter concerning pedestrian safety on Mathura Road, near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park. The judges expressed concern about delays in addressing the safety risks faced by lawyers, litigants, court employees, children and members of the public who cross the busy road.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, the bench said, in a lighter vein, that the judges would sit on a dharna at the High Court’s main gate and would not leave until the work was completed if the authorities failed to act before the next hearing.
The court’s remarks have drawn attention to the continuing challenges of pedestrian safety in busy urban areas and the responsibility of public authorities to provide safe road-crossing facilities.
Court raises concerns over Mathura Road crossing
The case concerns a stretch of Mathura Road near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park. The absence of adequate pedestrian facilities at the location had previously been brought to the Supreme Court’s attention.
Thousands of people, including lawyers, litigants, court staff and children, use the area. Without suitable crossing facilities and effective traffic-control measures, pedestrians may be exposed to the risk of road accidents.
The Supreme Court has previously emphasised the need for safer pedestrian infrastructure in this area. In an earlier order, it directed road-owning agencies to assess the need for additional pedestrian crossings in major cities and prioritise locations where road users face significant risks.
The Delhi High Court junction was specifically identified as a priority location. The latest hearing focused on the progress made by the authorities in addressing the concerns raised by the court.
Traffic signal installation fails to resolve concerns
During the hearing, amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal informed the bench that a traffic signal had been installed near the location. An amicus curiae is a person appointed or permitted to assist a court by providing relevant information or expertise.
However, the installation of a signal did not satisfy the judges that the wider pedestrian-safety problem had been resolved. Reports on the proceedings indicated continuing concerns about the effectiveness of the arrangements and the need for concrete improvements.
The bench questioned why the work required prolonged administrative discussions and committees when practical measures were needed to make the crossing safer.
The judges also indicated that officials should work with the assistance of the amicus curiae to identify the problems at the site and determine what measures were necessary.
The court’s position highlighted the difference between announcing plans and implementing measures that improve safety on the ground. A traffic signal alone may not address every risk if pedestrians still lack a suitable crossing, footpath or other essential infrastructure.
November 25 deadline for further action
The Supreme Court has set November 25 as the next important date in the matter. The authorities are expected to demonstrate progress in providing appropriate pedestrian-safety facilities by then.
The judges’ reference to staging a dharna was made humorously, but it conveyed their dissatisfaction with the delay. The bench indicated that further explanations would not be enough without tangible action.
The proceedings also highlighted the role of government agencies responsible for road infrastructure and traffic management. Such agencies must coordinate their work to ensure that road users can cross safely, particularly in busy areas surrounding public institutions.
The court’s intervention comes amid broader discussions about pedestrian safety and the need to make Indian cities more accessible to people who travel on foot.
Lawyers discuss the wider implications
The judges’ remarks have also prompted discussion among members of the legal community about the relationship between judicial intervention, government accountability and the timely delivery of justice.
A report by The Times of India noted that some lawyers responded to the remarks by drawing attention to the large number of pending cases in Indian courts. They raised a broader question about whether the use of protest-like language to secure action on public infrastructure could invite comparisons with litigants who wait years for their cases to be heard.
The issue of judicial delays remains a significant concern in India. The Supreme Court, High Courts and district courts handle substantial caseloads, and many litigants experience long waits for hearings and final decisions.
However, the judges’ comments in the pedestrian-safety matter were made in a lighter vein and should not be interpreted as a formal decision to stage a protest. The immediate issue before the bench was the need for safe crossing facilities and timely action by the responsible authorities.
Pedestrian safety and public responsibility
The case highlights a broader public-safety concern: roads and junctions must be designed to accommodate pedestrians as well as vehicles. Footpaths, pedestrian crossings, traffic signals, foot overbridges and other safety measures can play important roles, depending on the layout and traffic conditions at a particular location.
The Supreme Court’s earlier directions concerning pedestrian infrastructure also reflect the need for road-owning agencies to assess dangerous locations systematically and prioritise improvements where risks are high.
For people visiting courts, the availability of safe access is especially important. Lawyers, litigants and members of the public may need to reach court buildings at fixed times, and unsafe crossings can create avoidable risks.
The next hearing on November 25 is expected to provide an opportunity for the court to review the progress made by the authorities. Until then, the focus remains on translating the proposed safety measures into effective arrangements at the Mathura Road crossing.
The proceedings underline the need for practical solutions, coordination between agencies and timely implementation of measures designed to protect pedestrians near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Park.
