Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has called upon the Delhi Government and the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) to take all necessary measures to ensure that the entire fleet of DTC buses operates on the roads of the national capital, emphasising the importance of maintaining accessible public transport for commuters. The direction came while considering a Public Interest Litigation filed by Ami Sisodia concerning the disruption of DTC bus services following a strike by drivers, conductors and other personnel associated with bus operations.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing Ami Sisodia v. GNCTD & Ors., in which the petitioner sought urgent intervention to restore and maintain reasonable continuity of DTC and public bus services throughout Delhi. The petition raised concerns that the disruption of bus services was affecting a substantial section of the population that depends upon affordable public transportation for everyday mobility.

DTC buses constitute an important part of Delhi’s public transport network, particularly for commuters who cannot afford relatively expensive private or app-based alternatives. The petitioner’s case was that the non-operation of buses could not be viewed merely as an inconvenience to individual passengers because it had a wider impact on students, daily-wage workers, salaried employees, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and economically weaker sections of society.

The plea also highlighted the particular effect of the disruption on women commuters. Delhi’s public transport system includes a free bus travel facility for women, making DTC buses an especially significant mode of transportation for female passengers who depend upon the scheme for affordable daily travel. According to the petition, when buses were not available, women commuters were compelled to use alternative modes of transport that could impose substantially higher financial costs.

The dispute arose against the backdrop of industrial action by drivers, conductors and other personnel engaged in bus operations. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of services and reasonable continuity of public bus operations across the national capital. The petition therefore brought before the Court a question involving not only the availability of public transport but also the responsibilities of public authorities in maintaining essential civic services.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for DTC informed the Court that the situation had improved considerably and that approximately 96 per cent of the buses were, at that point, operating on the roads. The Court was also informed that DTC had sent a proposal to the Delhi Government on September 16 and 17 concerning invocation of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968, in relation to the disruption.

After considering the submissions and noting the improvement in the situation, the Division Bench did not issue a coercive or detailed operational direction at that stage. Instead, it disposed of the PIL while recording its expectation that the Delhi Government and DTC would take all appropriate measures to ensure that the entire fleet returned to the roads and continued providing services to commuters.

The Court also kept open the possibility of the petitioner returning to the Court. It made clear that if the situation failed to improve within a week, the petitioner could approach the High Court again. Thus, although the PIL was formally disposed of, the Court’s order preserved a mechanism for judicial scrutiny if the disruption continued.

The order is significant because it demonstrates the Court’s approach to public interest litigation concerning civic services. Rather than entering into the day-to-day administration of the public transport system, the Bench took note of the improvement reported by DTC while simultaneously stressing that the authorities must work towards restoration of the entire fleet. The Court thereby sought to balance administrative responsibility with judicial restraint.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Ami Sisodia, approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent directions for restoration of DTC and public bus services across Delhi. The petition was prompted by the strike involving drivers, conductors and other personnel associated with bus operations, which had resulted in disruption of services.

The central submission of the petitioner was that DTC buses provide one of the most affordable means of transportation in Delhi. Consequently, a widespread interruption of bus services has consequences extending far beyond inconvenience to ordinary commuters. The petitioner emphasised that a large section of the population depends upon public buses for travelling to workplaces, educational institutions, hospitals, markets and other essential destinations.

The plea particularly highlighted the position of economically weaker commuters. For persons who depend upon daily wages or have limited household incomes, shifting from public buses to taxis, private vehicles or other comparatively expensive forms of transport can create a significant financial burden. According to the petitioner, therefore, the disruption had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable sections of society.

Students were also identified as a group affected by the disruption. Many students rely on affordable public transportation to travel to schools, colleges and universities. A reduction in the availability of DTC buses can increase both the financial and logistical burden of attending educational institutions, particularly for students travelling longer distances across the national capital.

The petitioner also drew attention to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Public transport is not merely an economic necessity for many such commuters but can also be an important means of maintaining access to essential services and public spaces. Any prolonged disruption, according to the plea, therefore raises wider concerns regarding accessibility and mobility.

A specific concern was raised regarding women commuters. The petition referred to the Delhi Government’s free bus travel facility for women and submitted that the disruption of DTC services undermined the practical availability of that benefit. Women who ordinarily rely on buses for free travel were allegedly compelled to turn to alternative modes of transport, many of which require payment of fares.

The petitioner consequently sought intervention not merely for restoration of services to a limited level but for reasonable continuity of public bus operations throughout Delhi. The plea treated uninterrupted public transportation as a matter having a broader public interest dimension rather than as an individual grievance concerning a particular journey or route.

The respondents, represented by the Delhi Government and DTC, did not dispute that there had been disruption in bus operations. However, the position placed before the Court was that the situation had already improved substantially by the time of the hearing.

Counsel appearing for DTC informed the Division Bench that approximately 96 per cent of the buses were then operating on Delhi’s roads. This submission was important because the immediate circumstances before the Court were materially different from the situation that had prompted the filing of the PIL.

The DTC also informed the Court about steps being considered by the authorities to deal with the disruption. In particular, the Bench was told that DTC had sent a proposal to the Delhi Government on September 16 and 17 concerning invocation of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968.

The reference to the Essential Services Maintenance Act was relevant to the broader governmental response to disruption of services. The legislation provides a statutory framework concerning the maintenance of essential services and permits governmental action in circumstances falling within its statutory scope. The Court, however, did not itself direct the invocation of the legislation. Instead, it left the matter for consideration by the competent governmental authorities.

The respondents’ position, therefore, was essentially that the situation was improving and that the administration was already taking steps to restore bus operations. In view of the substantial improvement reported by DTC, there was no immediate necessity, according to the respondents, for the Court to issue detailed directions concerning the operational management of the transport corporation.

The submissions required the Court to consider the appropriate extent of judicial intervention. On one side was a public interest petition asserting that a major public transport disruption was affecting vulnerable commuters. On the other was an administrative position that the disruption was already being addressed and that bus operations had reached approximately 96 per cent of the fleet.

The Court was therefore required to determine whether further judicial directions were necessary or whether the improving situation warranted allowing the administrative authorities to continue handling the matter themselves.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court ultimately disposed of the PIL after taking note of the improvement in DTC bus operations. The Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia did not consider it necessary to issue detailed directions at that stage, but it nevertheless placed an important expectation upon the Delhi Government and DTC concerning the restoration of public transport services.

The Bench recorded that the situation was improving and therefore stated that it did not intend to pass a specific direction in the circumstances then prevailing. At the same time, the Court made it clear that the authorities were expected to take all measures necessary to ensure that the entire DTC fleet in Delhi was operating on the roads and providing services to commuters.

The distinction is significant. The Court did not simply close the proceedings on the basis that 96 per cent of buses were already operating. Instead, it recognised the improvement while making clear that the objective should be restoration of the entire fleet. The Court’s order thus placed responsibility upon the administrative authorities to complete the process of restoring bus services.

The Court’s approach also reflects the limited role ordinarily exercised by constitutional courts in matters involving complex administrative and operational decisions. The daily deployment of buses, management of personnel and implementation of transport arrangements involve factual and administrative considerations that are ordinarily within the competence of the executive authorities.

At the same time, judicial restraint does not mean that public authorities are free to disregard the consequences of a prolonged disruption in an essential public service. The Court’s observation that the authorities should ensure the entire fleet operates demonstrates that administrative responsibility remains subject to constitutional scrutiny where public interest is substantially affected.

The Bench also considered the proposal concerning the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968. DTC’s counsel informed the Court that a proposal had been sent to the Delhi Government on September 16 and 17 for invoking the statutory mechanism.

The Court did not itself decide that the Act should be invoked. Instead, it stated that the State Government should review the situation and take appropriate steps to ensure that DTC buses continued to ply on the roads.

This approach is important from the perspective of separation of institutional functions. Whether statutory powers under the Essential Services Maintenance Act should be exercised involves consideration of statutory conditions, administrative circumstances and governmental policy. The Court therefore left that decision to the competent authority while reminding the government of its responsibility to address the disruption.

The Court’s order further provided a safeguard against the possibility that the situation might deteriorate again. Although the PIL was disposed of, the Bench permitted the petitioner to approach the Court once more if the situation did not improve within one week.

This liberty granted to the petitioner ensured that the disposal of the case did not amount to a complete withdrawal of judicial oversight. The authorities were given an opportunity to resolve the situation administratively, but the petitioner retained the ability to seek further judicial intervention if the improvement reported before the Court failed to translate into sustained restoration of services.

The order is also significant because of the social dimension of the dispute. Public transport is closely connected with access to employment, education, healthcare and other essential activities. For economically weaker commuters, the distinction between an affordable public bus and a more expensive alternative mode of transport can be substantial.

The petitioner’s reliance on the impact upon women commuters also brought an additional dimension to the proceedings. Where a government scheme provides free bus travel to women, the effective availability of buses becomes relevant to the practical enjoyment of that facility. If buses are unavailable, the formal availability of free travel does not necessarily provide the same practical benefit.

The Court did not, however, make a separate adjudication on the legality or constitutionality of the women’s free travel scheme. Nor did it determine any individual claim for reimbursement or compensation arising from the disruption. The case was concerned with the broader issue of continuity of DTC services.

Similarly, the Court did not adjudicate upon the legality of the strike or determine the rights and liabilities of the employees involved in the industrial dispute. No finding was recorded that the drivers, conductors or other personnel had acted unlawfully. The immediate concern before the Court was the consequence of the disruption for public transport services.

The absence of an adverse adjudication against the employees is relevant because the petition arose from a situation involving industrial action. The Court’s order focused on maintaining public services rather than determining the underlying employment dispute.

The Bench’s decision also demonstrates how a court may respond to a PIL when circumstances change during the pendency of proceedings. The petition was filed when bus operations were substantially disrupted. By the date of hearing, however, DTC reported that approximately 96 per cent of buses were already operating. The Court consequently assessed the position as it existed at the time of hearing rather than issuing directions based solely on the earlier circumstances.

This approach avoids unnecessary judicial intervention where the underlying situation is already improving. At the same time, the Court’s expectation regarding the entire fleet and its grant of liberty to approach the Court again created continuing accountability for the authorities.

The Court’s reference to the possibility of revival of the matter after one week also reflects a practical form of judicial monitoring. Rather than prescribing a detailed timetable or directing the authorities regarding individual routes and bus deployment, the Bench identified the broad objective and left implementation to the administration.

The order therefore combines judicial restraint with administrative accountability. The Delhi Government and DTC retain responsibility for determining how to restore services, but the Court has made clear that the ultimate objective must be to ensure that the entire DTC fleet is available to commuters.

The case also illustrates the broader role of public interest litigation in addressing disruptions that affect large sections of the population. A PIL can bring before the Court issues that may not be capable of being effectively addressed through individual litigation because the harm is collective rather than confined to a particular person.

Here, the petitioner did not rely solely upon her own inconvenience. The petition highlighted the effect on students, workers, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, economically weaker sections and women commuters. The Court therefore considered the matter in the context of public transportation across Delhi.

Nevertheless, the Court stopped short of substituting its own administrative assessment for that of the transport authorities. The reported improvement in services was taken into account, and the authorities were allowed to continue taking appropriate steps. This prevented the judicial process from becoming a mechanism for managing the daily functioning of DTC.

The final outcome was consequently neither an unconditional dismissal of the concerns raised in the PIL nor a detailed judicial takeover of the transport administration. The Court disposed of the petition while recording its expectation that the entire DTC fleet would be restored to service and while directing the Delhi Government to review the situation in light of the proposal concerning the Essential Services Maintenance Act.

The petitioner was also given liberty to return to the High Court if the situation did not improve within a week. This condition preserved the Court’s ability to intervene if the administrative response proved insufficient.

The decision in Ami Sisodia v. GNCTD & Ors. thus underscores the importance of continuity in public transport while respecting the institutional role of the executive in managing a large public transport network. The Court recognised that the disruption had a real impact on commuters, particularly those dependent on affordable transportation, but also acknowledged that the situation had significantly improved by the time the matter was heard.

Ultimately, the High Court’s order places the responsibility for restoring full DTC operations squarely on the Delhi Government and DTC. The Court has not prescribed the precise administrative measures to be adopted. Instead, it has required the authorities to ensure the availability of the entire fleet and left open the possibility of further judicial intervention if that objective is not achieved.

The case therefore serves as an example of a measured judicial response to a public-service disruption: acknowledging the public consequences, taking note of administrative developments, avoiding unnecessary interference in operational matters, and retaining the ability to intervene if the promised improvement does not materialise.