‘Removing Street Vendors Is Not the Solution, Proper Planning Needed’: Madhya Pradesh High Court Seeks Bar Association’s Participation to Resolve Jabalpur Court Traffic Crisis
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasised that simply removing street vendors and handcart operators is not the solution to traffic congestion outside the Jabalpur District Court. The court called for a comprehensive plan involving the administration, traffic police, lawyers and other stakeholders to address the problem while taking into account the needs of the general public.
The observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Yeshwant Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain while hearing a public interest litigation concerning alleged traffic obstructions near Gates 3 and 4 of the new District Court premises in Jabalpur. The court stressed that a practical solution would require cooperation among all parties affected by the situation.
The petition was filed by a practising advocate of the Jabalpur District Court, who appeared in person. According to the petition, street vendors and handcarts operating near the court complex attract customers who park their vehicles along the road, allegedly obstructing traffic and making access to the premises difficult.
The petitioner also raised concerns about the alleged presence of individuals with criminal backgrounds around the shops and claimed that witnesses visiting the court could face intimidation. These allegations form part of the petition and have not been established as judicial findings.
During the hearing, the Bench acknowledged that street vendors also provide food and other essential items to lawyers, litigants and visitors. Observing that members of the public may prefer these stalls because of the prices charged at formal canteens, the court indicated that the needs of people visiting the court complex must also be considered while addressing traffic problems.
The Bench made it clear that if the vendors’ activities were creating a traffic hazard, the authorities would need to streamline their operations. It observed that removing them altogether would not necessarily resolve the underlying problem and that a properly designed arrangement was required.
The court further stated that any plan prepared by the traffic police or the court administration should not be imposed unilaterally. The participation of the Bar Association was considered particularly important because lawyers are among the principal users of the court premises and understand the practical difficulties faced there.
When the advocate informed the Bench that the lawyers’ body was also attempting to address the problem of roadside stalls, the court said the Bar Association should become a party to the proceedings if a comprehensive solution was to be achieved. The Bench indicated that the objective was to bring all stakeholders together rather than treat the dispute as an adversarial contest.
The petitioner had reportedly approached several authorities, including the Chief Justice of the High Court, the District and Sessions Judge, the district administration, the police and the Jabalpur Municipal Corporation, seeking action over the alleged encroachments and traffic congestion.
The High Court permitted the petitioner to move an application to bring additional stakeholders on record and directed that the matter be listed after two weeks. The development opens the way for a coordinated approach to managing traffic, regulating vending activities and ensuring smoother movement around the District Court.
The proceedings highlight the challenge of balancing public access, traffic management and the livelihoods of street vendors in busy urban areas. The court’s approach indicates that the focus should be on a workable arrangement that addresses congestion without treating the removal of vendors as the only available remedy.
