The Supreme Court today (October 16) again reiterated its concern over the absence of a pedestrian crossing at the Delhi High Court and orally warned that, if no action is taken at the next hearing, the judges will have to come and stage a dharna (protest) near it until it's done.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan said this on the lack of basic pedestrian infrastructure at the Mathura Road crossing, which witnesses heavy foot traffic from court visitors and the public. On September 15, Senior Advocate and amicus Gaurav Agarwal informed the court that the government added a red light, but the bench suggested speed breakers and rumble strips near the Delhi High Court crossing. Justice Pardiwala had said the matter is very important and had warned that the judges would visit to see if the needful has been done.

Subsequently, on October 5, the Court again directed that a pedestrian crossing be installed at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road on a priority basis.

Today, when the matter was taken up, Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee submitted that the issue is before a High-Level Committee set up by the Centre to examine what needs to be done at the crossing. To this, Justice Pardiwala orally stated that the Committee may be fine, but concrete action needs to be taken, or the bench will be constrained to direct the Chief Secretary's presence.

The bench orally warned that if no action is taken by November 25, the judges will go and sit outside the Delhi High Court in tow with ASG until the issue is resolved. Justice Pardiwala further suggested that the Committee may include the amicus in one of the meetings.

In today's hearing, two contempt petitions were also listed for non-compliance with two previous orders of the Court.

On interim compensation

Amicus Agarwal submitted that on April 28, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had stated the Union Government had notified Section 164A(scheme for interim relief to claimants) of the Motor Vehicles Act on April 1, 2022 but such an important provision is yet to be notified for more than 3 years. It remarked that the failure needs to be deprecated and directed them to notify it within 4 months.

Section 164A contemplates a scheme for interim relief to claims praying for compensation before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal.

However, during the hearing, ASG Banerjee submitted that the government had formed a scheme on February 23. To which the bench asked if the scheme had been notified and whether the amicus was aware of it. Agarwal submitted that he was hearing about this for the first time.

Hearing this, Justice Pardiwala questioned why the scheme is being dealt with so much secrecy. He told ASG: "...but Mr. Banerjee, there are a long line of judgments from Harla vs. State of Rajasthan onwards that publication is needed for a law, and that the law should be publicly known. This is an “unannounced law” otherwise?"

Amicus submitted that the scheme doesn't have any provision in respect of the owner of an uninsured vehicle who is liable to pay compensation. The bench has now suggested that as per Section 212 of the MV Act, the scheme should be published in an Official Gazette and that wide publicity must be given so that the beneficiaries of the scheme are aware about it.

Annual report on road accidents

In another contempt petition, it pointed out by the amicus that the April 17, 2025, order whereby the Court had directed for the publication of an Annual Report on road accidents for the year 2023 by the end of August 2025.

It was further directed that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways(MoRTH) will ensure that the annual reports are published within a period of 6 months from the expiry of the calendar year.

However, it was pointed out the annual report of 2024 was published only on June 11, 2026, and for the year 2025, it is yet to be published, when the deadline was June 30 year this.

The bench has issued notice in this contempt petition and has asked the MoRTH to file its response.