On Friday, the Supreme Court intervened by staying the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order to experimentally open the Punjab CM’s residence road. The road had been closed for security reasons during the turbulent years of Khalistani terrorism in the 1980s. Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta issued the stay order.
The bench was hearing the Punjab government’s challenge to the High Court’s directive. The matter arose in the context of broader concerns over traffic congestion and infrastructure challenges in Chandigarh.
The High Court, in its previous ruling, had directed the temporary opening of the road to the Chief Minister’s residence. The Court urged the authorities to formulate a traffic management plan to ease congestion.
The court criticized the state government’s approach as neglectful of public convenience. It recommended opening the road on working days from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM initially.
The Court emphasized that roads cannot remain closed indefinitely, especially when the Chief Minister frequently travels for official duties.
The High Court expressed concerns over authorities’ perception of threats and their impact on public convenience. It emphasized the need to adhere to Supreme Court precedents regarding the usage of public roads.
The HC called upon the Punjab government to take proactive steps in implementing the Chandigarh Tricity plan for improved mobility. This would benefit not only visitors but also officials commuting from various parts of Punjab.
Advocate General of Punjab, Senior Advocate Gurminder Singh, urged the court to stay the High Court’s directive. He cited recent security incidents, including the killing of singer Sidhu Moosewala and a Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) attack on the Intelligence headquarters.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta echoed these concerns. He argued for security management to remain within the government’s purview.
Supreme Court Halts High Court Road Directive
Following deliberations, the Supreme Court issued a notice returnable in the week commencing 2 September, effectively staying the High Court’s directive until further review.
The court, while acknowledging certain inconveniences caused by road blockades, emphasized the need for balanced considerations, including the ongoing efforts for road maintenance and construction.
Furthermore, the court inquired about alternative routes, to which the Punjab Advocate General highlighted the forthcoming completion of a bypass, suggesting a potential resolution to the security concerns.
Before concluding the proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta underscored the asymmetry of risks between terrorists and security agencies, emphasizing the need for constant vigilance and prevention efforts.
The case underscores the delicate balance between security imperatives and public accessibility, with the apex court poised to adjudicate on these competing interests in the coming months.
