Civic activist Qaneez Sukhrani has moved the Bombay High Court (HC) seeking contempt proceedings against the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), alleging that the civic body has failed to comply with directions issued in April 2025 to ensure safe, unobstructed and pedestrian-friendly footpaths across the city. At the heart of the petition is the allegation that a judicial direction intended to protect a basic civic right has not translated into effective action on the ground.
The contempt petition has been filed in public interest litigation (PIL) No.141 of 2023, in which the HC had held that the PMC has a statutory responsibility to provide pedestrians with safe passage on footpaths and pedestrian crossings and to take measures to keep such infrastructure free of obstructions.
Ms Sukhrani has alleged that even after the Court's order on 3 April 2025, PMC has neither cleared several obstructed footpaths nor repaired damaged stretches nor constructed footpaths at locations where they are required.
She said a legal notice seeking compliance was sent to the civic body on 9 April 2026, but there has been no effective response or meaningful compliance.
The petition alleges that PMC did not even submit a compliance report to the petitioner, despite 16 months having elapsed since the HC’s order.
According to Ms Sukhrani's petition, she communicated with the PMC commissioner on more than 30 occasions between 18 July 2025 and 31 May 2026, seeking the creation of a committee, headed by an additional commissioner, to monitor and coordinate action regarding footpath obstructions.
The proposed committee, she said, should bring together the civic body's various departments as well as agencies and utilities whose infrastructure or activities affect pedestrian spaces, including the traffic police, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (MSEDCL), Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) and internet service companies.
The objective was to ensure that footpaths remained available for pedestrians, were constructed in accordance with Indian Roads Congress (IRC) norms, and that responsibility for removing obstructions was clearly fixed, the petition says.
Ms Sukhrani has relied on photographs and newspaper reports in support of her allegation that the situation on the ground remains contrary to the Court's directions.
She has also alleged that PMC has failed to put in place a dedicated grievance redressal mechanism for pedestrian complaints, a helpline number, or a publicly available list of officers responsible for handling complaints in different areas.
The contempt plea stems from the PIL filed by Ms Sukhrani in 2023 over the condition and obstruction of footpaths in Pune.
In its 3 April 2025 order, the Bombay HC stressed that PMC's statutory responsibilities in urban planning and execution of development plans extend to providing basic facilities that allow pedestrians to move freely and safely.
The Court also made it clear that areas designated as footpaths should be kept free of obstructions and maintained in a condition suitable for use by pedestrians, including senior citizens and people with disabilities.
The case had also highlighted the presence of electrical installations on footpaths. Ms Sukhrani's PIL referred to recurring obstructions and safety concerns, including an electrocution incident in Balewadi allegedly linked to exposed electrical fuse boxes on a pavement.
In its order, the Court rejected the argument that the presence of such installations could be justified merely because electricity companies found footpaths convenient locations for their equipment.
The HC directed PMC to take steps to remove such obstructions and emphasised that pedestrian safety could not be compromised.
The Court also directed the civic body to develop a grievance redressal mechanism through which members of the public could report footpath-related problems and seek corrective action.
Ms Sukhrani's latest petition argues that the continued failure to implement the directions, despite the legal notice, amounts to wilful disobedience of the HC’s order.
The petition invokes Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which defines civil contempt as, among other things, 'wilful disobedience' of a judgment, decree, direction, order or other process of a court.
Ms Sukhrani has asked the HC to issue notices to the concerned respondent, call for records relating to the steps taken to comply with the 3 April 2025 order and after examining those records, initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
She has also sought directions for immediate compliance with the earlier order, including steps relating to the acquisition of land and the construction of footpaths and has requested that the matter be listed for monitoring of compliance.
The respondents in the original PIL include the Pune municipal commissioner, the Maharashtra government through its urban development department, the state town planning and valuation department, the Pune district collector, Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation and the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority.
The original proceedings had brought the condition of Pune's pedestrian infrastructure under judicial scrutiny.
A report by Moneylife, following the April 2025 order, quoted the HC as saying that the statutory responsibility of the PMC included providing basic facilities for pedestrians to move freely and safely on footpaths and at pedestrian crossings.
The report also said the Court had directed the civic body to relocate obstructions, such as electrical fuse boxes and to ensure that footpaths remained accessible to pedestrians.
The Court's directions were significant because footpaths across Pune have long been affected by a combination of encroachments, utility installations, road works, construction activity and other obstructions.
Ms Sukhrani had argued during the original PIL proceedings that merely constructing a footpath was not enough if it was subsequently taken over by encroachments or other installations.
The latest contempt petition now shifts the focus from the condition of individual footpaths to whether PMC has actually implemented the institutional measures ordered by the HC.
You may also want to read...
