Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Justice Alok Mathur, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Frame Policy To Regulate E-Rickshaws: Allahabad High Court Calls For Separate Traffic Police Cadre
|The Court noted the need for a dedicated traffic police cadre and strict regulatory frameworks for over 80,000 unregulated e-rickshaws overcrowding urban roads.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench has observed that the duties of traffic management are distinct from standard police functions and called upon the Uttar Pradesh government to consider forming a separate cadre for traffic police. The Court emphasized that deploying inadequately staffed local police personnel for traffic control places an undue burden on the law-and-order machinery.
Addressing the unchecked surge of around 80,000 e-rickshaws in Lucknow, the Court observed that the carrying capacity of city roads has been exceeded, leading to severe congestion. It held that while the Motor Vehicles Act is a central statute, the State holds concurrent legislative power under Concurrent List Entry 35 of Schedule VII and cannot remain passive while traffic management suffers.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai while hearing a Public Interest Litigation concerning urban traffic management in Lucknow, observed, “…The State cannot sit in a state of slumber on this issue and have to wake up and tackle the issue effectively by framing suitable policy. Accordingly, it is a serious issue which needs to be dealt with expeditiously”.
“We further find that the local police are already inadequately staffed to spare numerous personnel for the management of traffic stresses the law and order machinery system even further. Considering the fact that the duties of the two are clearly separate and distinct, the time has come when the State Government ought to take a decision in this regard”, it further noted.
Senior Advocate Asit Kumar Chaturvedi appeared for the petitioner while Sudeep Kumar, Additional Advocate General, Advocate Siddharth Shankar Dubey appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner brought the PIL to highlight systemic traffic bottlenecks in Lucknow, pointing out that tens of thousands of unregulated e-rickshaws lack designated parking spaces, leading to heavy congestion at major intersections. The matter also pertained to the absence of dedicated traffic enforcement personnel and unresolved traffic bottlenecks between Polytechnic and Kamta Crossing.
During earlier proceedings, the court had questioned state authorities on the feasibility of establishing a dedicated traffic police wing and regulating the influx of e-rickshaws. The Additional Director General of Police (Traffic) reported that no formal service rules currently exist for a separate traffic cadre, while state instructions indicated a lack of specific statutory mechanisms under the Motor Vehicles Act to restrict e-rickshaw sales and registrations.
On the issue, the Court noted that managing urban traffic requires specialized attention distinct from routine law enforcement. Diverting regular police forces to manage traffic strains basic policing and law-and-order duties. Regarding e-rickshaws, the Court highlighted that state governments possess concurrent legislative authority to frame regulatory frameworks controlling the registration, sale, and movement of vehicles to prevent city roads from exceeding their physical carrying capacities.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional Advocate General to instruct the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to duly consider creating a separate traffic police cadre. Additionally, specific instructions were sought from the Additional Chief Secretary (Transport) on regulating the sale, registration, and urban movement of e-rickshaws. The Court also ordered the verification of a compliance report submitted by the Nagar Nigam regarding 153 traffic bottlenecks between Polytechnic and Kamta Crossing, directing all proposals and compliance reports to be placed before it by the next listing date.
Cause Title: Suraj Singh Visen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. And 25 Others (WPIL No. 329 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, Saksham Agarwal, Chandan Mishra, and Prashant Sharma, Advocates.
Respondents: Sudeep Kumar (Additional Advocate General), Shailendra Singh Chauhan (Chief Standing Counsel), Sri Vivek Shukla (Additional Chief Standing Counsel), Namit Sharma, C.S.C., Anagh Shukla, and Sidharth Shankar Dubey, Advocates.