Hyderabad footpath encroachments spark fresh High Court concern.
Unhappy with slow progress, High Court gave agencies two final weeks to show results on clearing footpaths.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Tuesday expressed sharp concern over the persistent takeover of footpaths across the city and what it described as the worrying inaction of civic and enforcement agencies despite earlier court directions to protect pedestrian spaces.
Hearing a public interest litigation on the illegal occupation of footpaths, Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar gave the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), the Traffic Police and the Hyderabad Road and Traffic Authority (HYDRAA) a final two-week deadline to file a comprehensive report. The judge ordered the agencies to detail the concrete steps they have taken — and will take — to remove encroachments and restore footpaths so pedestrians can walk safely without being forced onto busy roads.
The court’s displeasure was plain. It noted that authorities had not posted a compliance report nor shown any substantial results since the bench’s clear directions on May 4. “Implementation must begin immediately,” the judge said, stressing that work should not be limited to a few visible stretches but must include areas around the High Court and extend across the city. The message was blunt: routine promises are no substitute for action.
Petitioners told the court that footpaths near the High Court remain occupied by shops, stalls and permanent-looking structures, compelling advocates, litigants and ordinary citizens to step into vehicular traffic. Those accounts struck a chord with the bench, which observed that encroachments do more than inconvenience pedestrians — they exacerbate traffic congestion and undermine road safety for all users. Similar conditions, the court noted, prevail in multiple parts of Hyderabad, not just near the courts.
Justice Shravan Kumar reiterated directions the court has issued previously: authorities must carry out regular, sustained enforcement drives to clear illegal occupations and install permanent protective measures — such as bollards or railings — to prevent renewed encroachment. The court reminded the agencies of their statutory duty to maintain roads and ensure unobstructed pedestrian movement, and urged prompt action against unauthorized parking that blocks traffic flow.
During proceedings, the judge drew attention to binding precedents from the Supreme Court, stressing that violations of planning rules and unauthorized constructions cannot be regularised or granted legal cover merely because they are longstanding. He cited the apex court’s 2024 guidelines on demolitions of unauthorised structures, underscoring the need to follow due process while still ensuring robust enforcement. The message: legality must be respected, but longstanding illegality cannot be allowed to ossify into the city’s default.
For many residents the issue is painfully familiar. Footpaths that once offered safe, level walkways are now often occupied by vendors, parked vehicles or ad-hoc structures. Elderly citizens, parents with strollers, and workers who rely on walking for daily commutes report daily hazards — detours into traffic, uneven surfaces, and an everyday negotiation between pedestrians and speeding vehicles. These micro-level disruptions accumulate into systemic public-safety risks that the court said cannot be ignored.
The GHMC and traffic authorities face multiple challenges in practice: balancing livelihoods of street vendors, managing scarce kerbside space, and coordinating enforcement across municipal, police and transport departments. Yet the court’s tone made clear that administrative complexity cannot be an excuse for paralysis. Authorities were instructed to present not just plans but evidence of on-the-ground action — photographs of cleared stretches, records of enforcement drives, lists of removed structures, and timelines for installing permanent protective barriers.
The High Court directed its Registry to circulate the latest order to all concerned departments and warned that the agencies would be expected to demonstrate tangible progress when the matter is brought back in two weeks. That short deadline signals the bench’s impatience with delay and its intent to follow up actively.
The human dimension was implicit throughout the hearing. Footpaths are not merely urban amenities; they are public commons that determine whether the city is accessible and safe for all residents. When sidewalks vanish under shops and parked cars, the burden of risk falls disproportionately on the most vulnerable: children, the elderly, and daily wage workers who cannot afford private transport.
As Hyderabad grows, the court’s order is a reminder that urban development must include space for people on foot. The coming fortnight will test whether civic agencies translate judicial urgency into sustained enforcement and simple, visible interventions that put pedestrians back on pavements — where they belong.