HC pulls up top cops for traffic mess in Mumbai
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday asked Mumbai Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik and Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Vivek Phansalkar to appear before the court on August 22 observing there is no implementation of the government’s proposed measures and existing norms to ease traffic problems in the city.
Citing the example of the PIL against illegal hookah parlours where the court had earlier called the CP after which immediate action was taken, Chief Justice Mohit Shah said, “Unless the CP is called, the situation will not change.”
The court was hearing PILs filed by the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) and the Western India Automobile Association, seeking better traffic safety and strict adherence of traffic norms in the city. In June, the court had directed the state government to include representatives of the BEST, taxi and autorickshaw unions with their zonal sub-committees so they can be sensitised about traffic rules.
Government pleader D A Nalavade told the court that the government had identified three zones and set up 25 sub-committees pursuant to court directions. He said the committees had been set up to sensitise police officers and educate citizens about traffic rules.
Nalavade also said the government plans to instal more CCTV cameras for efficient monitoring of the traffic. On behalf of the BBA, lawyer Armin Wandrewala, however, pointed out that installing more CCTV cameras will not improve the traffic situation and added that ground level implementation of the traffic rules is more important. “It is in an abysmal state today,” Wandrewala said.
Chief Justice Shah and Justice R P Sondurbaldota observed that educating people and strict implementation of the traffic rules will have to be done simultaneously. Nalavade assured the court that the government was doing its best and the situation will change soon.
The judges, however, felt nothing will move ahead unless senior officers are pulled up. The court reminded the state government that citizens should not be reminding it of its responsibilities and the court should not be made to hear such cases.