Rajendra Ravi
The Delhi Bus Rapid Transit system was inaugurated in 2008 on the 5.6 kilometre stretch between Ambedkar Nagar and Moolchand Crossing. Public transport, especially buses, was given priority over private vehicles on this stretch. The rate of increase of private vehicles in Delhi is the highest in the country. It was evident that drivers of cars and motorbike would start feeling antsy about the allocation of a separate lane to buses since the road space available to them became restricted. Traffic jams ensued and the cry went up from private vehicle owners to stop the BRT. The media, especially the English language press, too ran a campaign against the Delhi BRT, since it was their readers and intellectuals associated with them who were getting affected. But the Delhi Government remained adamant in its support to the BRT.
In this context and atmosphere, an NGO named Nyaya Bhoomi filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court stating that because of the Delhi BRT, the condition of car users has worsened and there is no significant improvement in the condition of bus users. A Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Manmohan Singh dismissed the PIL saying that the Government’s decision cannot be termed arbitrary or absurd, that the project has been initiated keeping in mind future increase in population and consequent increase in transportation demand, and it is not possible to widen roads unendingly. It is possible that the benefits from the project are not perceptible at present, but they will be realized in the future.
Nyaya Bhoomi had submitted “No consideration is given to the value of the time of the car users who are generally wealth creators such as managers, directors etc. as they waste extra 20 minutes on travelling on BRT Route”.
The statement of the Delhi High Court on this point is important to note: The argument in the writ petition that those who create wealth travel on the roads by cars and their time is precious is too egalitarian an argument and ignores that unless labour meaningfully participates hand in hand with the capital, by itself the capital would create no wealth. Interests or concerns, beyond what belongs to any 1 of the 160 million people of Delhi have to be adjudicated keeping in view the interest of all and not a few or a group. Besides, these “wealth creators”, we are sure would like to live in a developed country; and we remind ourselves that a developed country is not one where the poor own cars. It is one where the rich use public transport.
The panel noted: “Under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), the grant by the Central Government through the Ministry of Urban Development to Delhi has been utilized 83% for expansion of roads and construction of flyovers. 15% has been spent on parking projects and only 2% to other transport projects. What does it reveal? Cars, cars and cars and nothing else. And yet the roads are bursting on the seams. It could well be argued that when more than 50% of the road passengers travel by buses it would be illogical and irrational to spend 98% of the grants under JNNURM with the targeted beneficiary being cars”.
Pronouncing its 24page verdict, the Delhi High Court panel said: “The roads are bursting on the seams due to cars. It is akin to the population of herbivores in a forest going beyond the sustainable limits of the forest requiring some kind of culling; and since in a democracy it is not possible to physically seize cars and destroy them, the only democratic solution would be to dedicate road space for buses, which would move quick and fast and this would act as an incentive for people to switch over to public transport. The carrying capacity of the roads having bursted on the seams and 2 cars which carry 3 passengers occupy same space on the road as one bus; a policy has to be evolved where people voluntarily switch over to public transport. “
Today, Indian cities are facing congestion, pollution and traffic accidents. Several lakh people die in road accidents. The impact of pollution has not even been estimated with accuracy. The National Urban Transport Policy was promulgated in 2006 keeping these issues in mind. Advocate KTS Tulsi appeared on behalf of the defendant Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. However, the major political parties have adopted a two-faced approach. The BJP has opposed the BRT in Delhi while it has facilitated the creation of BRTs in Ahmedabad and Indore.
In fact, the issue of support or opposition to BRT is linked to the rights of the urban poor to the road. It is linked to the design of the BRT. The design of the Delhi BRT provides for space and facilities to the transportation modes of the poor, that is cycles and cycle rickshaws, and for the livelihoods of street vendors and hawkers. There is space allocated for auto rickshaw stands. Besides the BRT buses, other vehicles like chartered bues, school buses, ambulance, fire brigade vans also use the dedicated bus lane. The design of Ahmedabad BRT emphasizes that only BRT buses may use the dedicated bus lane and other buses are not permitted. At those spots where the question of priority to buses or cars arises, the buses are taken onto flyovers. There is hardly any attention to the needs of the poor. That is the reason why 25 km of Ahmedabad BRT is perceived as a ‘dream’ project while 5.6 km of Delhi BRT is projected as a national ‘Kurukshetra’. In fact, the conflict related to Delhi BRT pertains to the rights of the poor and the dominance of the rich. This conflict may go on in the future.
Read the High Court Judgment: Delhi High court judgement