NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its strong displeasure over the Centre's failure to build a pedestrian crossing on Mathura Road outside the Delhi High Court and warned that if it was not built by November 25, the judges themselves would sit on a dharna outside the HC.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan orally observed that if concrete action was not taken by November 25, "they themselves would sit on a dharna outside the Delhi HC."
The bench said that, if required, the Chief Secretary could also be summoned.
During the hearing on Friday, the bench said that crossing the road at the Delhi High Court junction and near the National Zoological Park is extremely risky. Thousands of lawyers, litigants and children cross the road there daily, but adequate arrangements have not been made for their safety.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, the bench said in a lighter vein, "If you don't get this work done before the next hearing, both of us will be at the main gate of the Delhi High Court. We will not go home till the work is completed. We will sit on a dharna there and will not let Mr. Banerjee also go home."
Banerjee told the court that a committee constituted after high-level discussions on the issue was actively considering it.
However, the bench questioned the bureaucratic delay in resolving a basic traffic problem.
There is heavy vehicular movement on Mathura Road outside the Delhi High Court. There is no arrangement for a safe pedestrian crossing for lawyers, litigants and common people coming to the court.
Earlier, on September 15, amicus curiae senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal had told the top court that the government had installed a red light there. However, the bench, not considering it sufficient, had suggested installing speed breakers and rumble strips. On October 5 also, the Supreme Court had directed the construction of a pedestrian crossing near the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road.
During the hearing, the issue of a scheme for providing interim relief to accident victims under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act was also raised.
The amicus curiae informed the court that the Supreme Court had, on April 28, 2025, directed the Centre to notify a scheme under this provision within four months. On behalf of the Centre, it was stated that the scheme had been prepared on February 23.
On hearing this, the bench questioned whether it had been notified and why the amicus curiae was not aware of it. Justice Pardiwala observed that a law must be public.
He questioned whether this was an 'unannounced law'. The bench suggested that, in accordance with Section 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the scheme be published in the official gazette and widely publicised so that beneficiaries could get information about it.