Introduction:

In Neehal Taneja v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 18315/2025, the Delhi High Court addressed a significant issue concerning road safety and traffic management in the national capital, particularly the functioning of traffic signals during night hours when they are frequently placed on blinker mode, creating potential hazards for commuters, pedestrians, and especially the exponentially growing number of late-night delivery personnel navigating the city. The Petitioner, Neehal Taneja, approached the Court seeking directions for ensuring that traffic signals across Delhi function round the clock, contending that the current practice of switching signals to blinker mode at night leads to confusion, indiscipline, and serious risk of accidents. In the introduction of his case, the Petitioner highlighted that modern metropolitan cities require more robust traffic management strategies, especially in view of the lifestyle changes that now keep roads active even after midnight.

Arguments:

He argued that 24×7 signal operation would significantly reduce the number of road accidents caused due to lack of clarity at intersections and that a technical audit was also necessary to identify malfunctioning signals and maintain a uniform mechanism of record-keeping for monitoring signal status, thereby ensuring accountability within traffic authorities. Presenting the petitioner’s arguments, counsel submitted that several traffic lights in smaller colonies and inner roads remain either non-functional or in blinking mode for long durations, often without monitoring, and despite multiple complaints, no centralised mechanism exists for the public to track or report these issues. It was further argued that the city’s increasing dependence on gig-economy delivery workers, ride-share drivers, emergency service providers, and night-shift employees necessitates a stable and predictable signal system to prevent collisions, particularly in areas with blind turns or multi-road intersections. The petitioner contended that the absence of 24×7 functional signals not only jeopardises the lives of these workers but also reduces the effectiveness of Delhi’s road-safety commitments under national and international guidelines and that non-functioning signals weaken public confidence in traffic enforcement. He therefore sought comprehensive directions for a technical audit of all signals across the capital, a mandatory system of uniform record-keeping of signal functioning, and institutional accountability for lapses.

On the other hand, the Central Government, represented by counsel, submitted that an institutional mechanism for addressing such concerns already exists, pointing out that a dedicated Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Technical), Delhi Police, oversees traffic signal functioning, with the Special Commissioner of Police (Traffic) exercising supervisory authority. The respondents argued that the petitioner could raise all concerns before this Committee rather than seeking direct judicial intervention. They further argued that decisions regarding traffic signal functioning, including the practice of switching to blinker mode at night, are based on expert assessments of traffic volume, road safety patterns, energy consumption, and police deployment considerations. The government contended that the judiciary should refrain from entering the domain of administrative policy unless there is a blatant violation of fundamental rights, which was not demonstrated in this case. They also emphasised that signal malfunctions often result from technical faults, power fluctuations, or temporary repair delays, and that the existing technical teams actively work to address complaints. The Delhi Government similarly argued that traffic engineering is a specialised field requiring expert assessment, and uniform 24×7 operation of signals may not be suitable for all localities, particularly for low-traffic areas where continuous operation may not substantially improve safety. However, both the Centre and the Delhi Government agreed that the petitioner’s grievances could be considered by the competent Committee.

Judgement:

After hearing submissions, the Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that since a specialised traffic committee already exists, the appropriate course of action would be to permit the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to that Committee, enclosing all documents, photographs, instances of malfunctioning signals, technical suggestions, and road-safety concerns. The Court observed that issues raised in the PIL require careful technical evaluation by experts rather than blanket directions from the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the PIL and directed that once such a representation is submitted, the Committee must examine the issues and take appropriate decisions and actions to redress the petitioner’s concerns. Importantly, the Court directed the Committee to decide the representation within two months, ensuring timely administrative consideration. The Court also took note of appearances from the Union of India, Delhi Police, and GNCTD to underscore that all relevant authorities were present and aware of the concerns raised. By choosing not to issue direct mandamus for 24×7 traffic signal operation but instead ensuring expert review, the Delhi High Court balanced institutional restraint with public safety considerations. Through this judgment, the Court reinforced the principle that complex traffic-management matters must be based on expert evaluation, yet citizen concerns must be given full opportunity to be considered within the administrative framework. Thus, the PIL was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to present an exhaustive representation, and the Committee was mandated to decide the same expeditiously, ensuring that the concerns regarding non-functional or blinker-mode traffic signals receive dedicated administrative attention.