Delhi HC Dismisses Advocate's Writ Over Connaught Place Traffic Gridlock, Citing Traffic Authority Primacy
Justice Amit Bansal declined to entertain a writ petition filed by an advocate-in-person challenging daily traffic gridlock near his Connaught Place office, holding the issue beyond Article 226 jurisdiction.
The Delhi High Court on 19 August 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by advocate Saurabh Kumar Gupta, who appeared in person, against Delhi Traffic Police and others over what he described as a daily traffic gridlock in the Connaught Place area where his office is situated. Justice Amit Bansal, sitting singly, held that the regulation of traffic in the city is a matter within the domain of traffic authorities and that the Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not act as an appellate authority over decisions taken by those authorities. The order relied on a recent Division Bench precedent of the same court to reach that conclusion.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Saurabh Kumar Gupta, a practising advocate, filed W.P.(C) 12022/2026 before the Delhi High Court. His grievance was directed at the manner in which traffic in the Connaught Place area is managed—or, as he alleged, not managed—by Delhi Traffic Police. He contended that traffic in the area is not handled effectively, resulting in a daily gridlock that affects him and others who work there.
Gupta appeared as petitioner in person and was also represented by Ms. Shweta Sharma, Advocate. On the other side, Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Senior Panel Counsel, appeared for respondent no. 1, Delhi Traffic Police, and Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate, appeared for respondent no. 3.
Respondent's Position and the Precedent Raised
Counsel for Delhi Traffic Police submitted before the Court that adequate policemen are deployed at peak traffic hours in the Connaught Place area and that the petitioner's concerns were, therefore, being adequately addressed.
Counsel also drew the Court's attention to a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mamta Rani v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reported as 2023:DHC:4413-DB. That judgment, the respondent submitted, had already settled the question of whether traffic regulation decisions are amenable to writ jurisdiction.
What the Division Bench Had Held in Mamta Rani
Paragraph 7 of the Division Bench's order in Mamta Rani was placed on record and reproduced by Justice Bansal in the present order. The Division Bench had held: “The traffic authorities are the best judges to decide the issue of regulation of traffic in the city.”
The Division Bench had gone on to say that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is not inclined to sit as an appellate authority over decisions taken by traffic authorities for regulating the movement of traffic in the city. Critically, the Division Bench had also held that this issue cannot be raised in a writ petition at all.
That holding squarely covered the relief sought by Gupta in the present petition. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking directions to manage the Connaught Place traffic situation more effectively—precisely the kind of operational traffic-management direction that the Division Bench in Mamta Rani had placed beyond the reach of Article 226.
How Justice Bansal Reasoned
Justice Bansal applied the Mamta Rani precedent without qualification. The Court found that the traffic authorities are in the best position to decide questions of traffic regulation, and that entertaining a writ petition seeking the Court to direct a particular manner of traffic management in a specific locality would amount to exactly the kind of appellate review the Division Bench had declined to perform.
The Court did not express a view on whether the petitioner's underlying factual complaint about gridlock was valid or invalid. The dismissal rested entirely on the question of jurisdiction and the appropriate institutional forum: traffic regulation decisions belong to traffic authorities, not to the High Court acting under Article 226.
Outcome
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed W.P.(C) 12022/2026 by order dated 19 August 2026. No directions were issued to Delhi Traffic Police. The petition was not admitted for further consideration.