The Delhi High Court has issued orders to ensure strict enforcement of existing regulations concerning the presence of slow-moving vehicles on expressways within the national capital's boundaries.

This decision was made by a division bench led by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated by Yuvraj Francis.

Yuvraj Francis filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) addressing the problem of slow-moving vehicles using expressways, even though such vehicles are typically banned from doing so.

The case primarily concerned the presence of slow-moving vehicles on expressways, with a specific focus on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway, which is designed for high-speed traffic. The petitioner, Yuvraj Francis, had been using this expressway for his commute since 2011 and had noticed a growing number of slow-moving vehicles, including two-wheelers, three-wheelers, and tractors, which are typically not allowed on such high-speed roads. This unauthorized presence of slow-moving vehicles had led to a significant number of accidents, fatalities, and property damage.

Between 2022 and 2023, the petitioner had made multiple appeals to various authorities, including the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and local traffic departments, regarding the issue at hand. Despite these attempts, there was a notable absence of substantial action taken in response to the petitioner's raised concerns. Consequently, Yuvraj Francis opted to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to seek judicial involvement in resolving the problem of slow-moving vehicles on expressways.

According to communications from the NHAI, it was confirmed that slow-moving vehicles were indeed prohibited on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway, and they referred to a concession agreement between NHAI and a private company that outlined the maintenance requirements for the expressway. The petitioner argued that the failure of local traffic authorities to take substantial action in enforcing these prohibitions had compelled him to initiate the PIL. The petitioner stressed the high number of accidents and fatalities linked to the presence of slow-moving vehicles on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the prohibition of slow-moving vehicles on expressways was consistent with industry best practices, safety standards, and regulatory provisions.

The respondent did not contest the prohibition of slow-moving vehicles on particular expressways. It was noted that the NHAI had been actively communicating with local traffic authorities to strengthen and enforce the restrictions on slow-moving vehicles on expressways.

In their judgment, the division bench acknowledged the paramount significance of road safety and acknowledged that the regulation of traffic, including the enforcement of speed limits and vehicle restrictions, is primarily the responsibility of the executive branch. Nonetheless, they emphasized that the role of the judiciary should not be understated or overlooked, especially when citizens invoke their right to a safer transportation environment, which is intricately connected to the broader right to life and personal liberty.

The Court highlighted a communication sent by the NHAI to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) in New Delhi's South-West District and Gurugram's Sushant Lok from the previous year. This communication acknowledged the alarming rate of accidents linked to slow-moving vehicles on the Delhi-Gurugram Expressway and stressed the imperative for strict enforcement.

The Court acknowledged that although regulations regarding the presence of slow-moving vehicles on expressways exist, there is a gap in their actual implementation. The NHAI's acknowledgment of this enforcement gap prompted the court to issue directives aimed at establishing effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the prescribed rules are adhered to.

The PIL had included a plea for the creation of dedicated lanes for slow-moving vehicles on expressways. The Court noted that this suggestion is multifaceted, as it encompasses policy matters, practicality, road safety ramifications, and overall traffic management. Consequently, the Court decided that such a determination should be made by the government and the relevant departments, as they are better equipped to weigh these complex factors and make an informed decision.

The Court recognized Yuvraj Francis's commendable efforts in raising this issue of great public importance and urged a joint commitment from both the authorities and the public to improve road safety. They expressed their hope that their directives would result in safer expressways and roads, providing a secure and efficient travel experience for all users, irrespective of their mode of transportation.

Case: Yuvraj Francis vs. Union Of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13713/2023 & CM APPL. 54170/2023.