Waiting for a bus without shelter is also a constitutional issue: Bombay High Court takes suo motu cognisance of Nagpur’s collapsing bus stop infrastructure

The Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation was thereafter disposed of with the aforesaid directions. (AI image)

The Bombay High Court, in a significant order, said that, it is a failure of “constitutional governance” if citizens are compelled to wait for buses in extreme weather without providing any shelter or seating for them, under Article 21 of the Constitution. Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra.The Court said that:“Absence of basic infrastructure at bus stops is not merely an administrative lapse but reflects a failure of constitutional governance”Taking suo motu cognisance of newspaper reports highlighting the deteriorating condition of bus stops in Nagpur city, a Division Bench of Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Raj D. Wakode initiated Public Interest Litigation proceedings concerning the absence of bus stop infrastructure, encroachments upon designated bus stops, and the lack of basic passenger amenities for daily commuters.The Court’s observations were made in the light of the rising summer temperature in the Vidarbha region and the visible absence of even minimal civic facilities for thousands of passengers’ dependent upon public transport.The proceedings originated from reports published in the Marathi daily newspaper Sakal, which drew attention to the poor condition of bus stop facilities in Nagpur city. The reports highlighted how large sections of the population, including students, senior citizens, office-goers, and daily wage workers, rely upon city bus services for their everyday transportation needs. Despite this dependence, commuters were allegedly being forced to wait for buses on roadsides without any proper shelter, seating arrangement, or designated infrastructure.The Court in particular referred to one of the busiest stretches in Nagpur city, extending from Medical Square to Krida Square and from the Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Statue to Besa Road, where city buses regularly halt but the authorities have failed to establish any formal bus stand or proper bus stop facility.According to the order, buses routinely stopped near a petrol pump close to Medical Square, compelling passengers to stand exposed on the roadside throughout the year, irrespective of weather conditions. Despite heavy commuter usage, the municipal authorities had failed to provide even the most elementary facilities such as bus shelters, benches, or signboards indicating designated bus stops.Encroachments on Existing Bus Stops Also NoticedThe Court also took note of encroachments upon existing bus stop infrastructure.The Court also referred to a bus stop called “Swami Samartha Manewada Road Besa” on the Sitabuldi–Besa route. It noted that the bus stop was located at one far end of the road, making it difficult and inconvenient for passengers to use. Because of this, many commuters preferred waiting for buses on the roadside instead of using the actual bus stop. Taking advantage of the situation, vendors, vehicle owners, and other persons had allegedly encroached upon the area and started using the bus stop space for completely unrelated activities.The Court noted that although municipal anti-encroachment squads and traffic police regularly conducted drives in other parts of the city, no meaningful action had been taken to remove the encroachments at the concerned location.The Division Bench particularly emphasized the hardships faced by ordinary citizens during the intense summer season in Vidarbha.The Court observed that during the months of April and May, the region experiences severe heat wave conditions, making the absence of bus stop infrastructure even more serious for commuters waiting for public transport.The Bench effectively treated the issue not merely as one concerning urban planning or civic inconvenience, but as a matter directly implicating constitutional dignity and humane living conditions.High Court Links Public Transport Amenities with Article 21In the discussion of the overall constitutional structure, the Court had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, wherein the Supreme Court spoke about the meaning and scope of the right to shelter and living a dignified life under the Constitution’s Article 21. The High Court reproduced portions of the Supreme Court judgment explaining that the right to life under Article 21 does not merely mean animal existence, but includes access to basic civic infrastructure necessary for dignified human life.The Supreme Court observations reproduced by the Bench stated that the right to live with dignity includes access to:“food, water, decent environment, education, medical care and shelter.”The judgment also observed that the concept of shelter is not limited to merely having a roof over one’s head, but also includes basic civic infrastructure and living conditions necessary for a person to live with dignity and develop as a human being.The Bombay High Court used these constitutional principles to underline that public infrastructure cannot be viewed narrowly or treated as a matter of administrative convenience alone.“Absence of Bus Stops Reflects Failure of Constitutional Governance”In one of the most important observations in the order, the Court held that the issue went far beyond ordinary civic negligence.The Bench observed:“In our considered opinion, the absence of basic infrastructure at bus stops is not merely an administrative lapse but reflects a failure of constitutional governance.”The Court further remarked that compelling citizens to wait for buses in extreme weather conditions without even minimal protection directly affects their dignity under Article 21.The Bench observed:“When citizens are compelled to wait in extreme weather conditions without shelter or seating, the State effectively denies them a life of dignity guaranteed under Article 21.”Municipal Authorities Cannot Escape ResponsibilityThe Court also made it clear that municipal corporations are under a statutory and constitutional obligation to ensure minimum public transport infrastructure.Rejecting any possible attempt to treat the matter casually, the Court observed that municipal bodies cannot evade responsibility for ensuring basic commuter facilities.The Bench stressed that the civic authorities who exercise constitutional powers have constitutional duties towards the citizens as well.Considering the seriousness of the issues raised in the newspaper reports, the Court decided to treat the matter as a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation.However, instead of immediately issuing notices to all respondents, the Court chose to first provide an opportunity to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to address the issue administratively.The Court directed the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, to examine the issues highlighted in the reports and conduct a necessary enquiry regarding bus stop infrastructure and passenger amenities in the city.The municipal authorities were specifically directed to take steps necessary for improvement of bus stop infrastructure and basic passenger amenities across Nagpur city.The High Court further directed the Municipal Commissioner to submit an Action Taken Report before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court within four months from the date of the order.The Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation was thereafter disposed of with the aforesaid directions.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)