On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a petition addressing safety concerns for pedestrians on highways, emphasizing that individuals are not meant to wander on these roads. The case challenged a Gujarat High Court order related to the safety and protection of pedestrians on highways.

Rejecting the petition, the high court stated that it cannot provide specific directives since the relief sought involves matters of policy decisions. The court suggested that the petitioners address their concerns by approaching the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for the issues raised in their plea. The case was heard on Monday by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The petitioners' counsel highlighted that the plea centered around ensuring the safety and protection of pedestrians on highways. In response, the bench questioned how pedestrians end up on highways, emphasizing the need for discipline. The counsel referred to statistics, pointing out a significant rise in the number of road accidents involving pedestrians across the country.

The bench remarked that incidents of this nature would inevitably happen if pedestrians are found in places where they shouldn't be. It emphasized the idea that highways are designed for segregation, and people are not meant to roam freely on them. The bench stressed the importance of discipline, expressing concern about the possibility of suggesting that individuals should be allowed to walk or stroll on a highway while expecting cars to come to a stop. It questioned the feasibility of such a scenario.

When the lawyer reiterated the statistics, citing an increase in deaths from such accidents, the bench responded by attributing it to the expansion of highways, asserting that the lack of discipline hasn't kept pace. The bench noted that the high court had given the petitioners the freedom to approach the relevant ministry.

The bench emphasized the impossibility of having diverse forms of traffic on highways, including pedestrians, stating, "You should be content with the existing situation." It questioned the court's authority to condone norm violations, stating that people are not observed wandering on highways anywhere in the world.

The bench characterized the petition as entirely illogical, stating that it should have been rejected with costs. It further remarked that despite this, the petitioners had still obtained some consideration from the high court.