Dignity-Centric Mobility and Eco-Sensitive Infrastructure: Supreme Court outlaws hand‑pulled rickshaws in Matheran, mandates clay pavers and a State-run e‑rickshaw rehabilitation model

Introduction

This judgment, delivered by a three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai (with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria concurring) in the longstanding forest and environment PIL In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, resolves a cluster of issues affecting Matheran—a uniquely “pedestrian” hill station within the Western Ghats and notified as an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The case centers on two policy choices with deep environmental and socio-constitutional consequences: (i) whether to permit clay paver blocks on the main access road to arrest monsoon-driven soil erosion, and (ii) whether to end the practice of hand-pulled carts/rickshaws and transition to battery-operated e-rickshaws, and if so, how to allocate and regulate them.

The parties included the Union of India and State of Maharashtra, with meaningful participation from an Amicus Curiae (Mr. K. Parameshwar), counsel defending environmental interests and horse-dependent livelihoods, and representatives for hand cart/rickshaw pullers. Expert inputs were obtained from IIT Bombay and NEERI on the environmental engineering questions surrounding the paver-block solution.

At the heart of the dispute lay the need to protect fragile hill ecology while preserving Matheran’s pedestrian character, and to replace an inhumane, dignity-eroding transport practice with a humane, sustainable alternative that safeguards livelihoods.

Summary of the Judgment

Clay paver blocks approved on main artery only: The Court accepted IIT Bombay and NEERI’s findings that clay paver blocks are the best solution to arrest soil erosion on the main road between Dasturi Naka and Shivaji Maharaj Statue. It prohibited any concrete bed beneath these blocks, mandated the use of geotextile layers, sand bedding, cambering, contour bunds, lateral drains, and rumble strips, and ordered the removal of any existing concrete pavers or concrete bedding.
No pavers on internal roads/trekking routes: To preserve the pedestrian character and protect trekking and horse-based livelihoods, laying paver blocks on internal roads and trekking routes is disallowed.
Hand-pulled rickshaws to end within six months: Declaring the practice an affront to human dignity and inconsistent with Article 23’s prohibition on forced labour, the Court ordered a phased cessation, to be completed within six months.
State-led e-rickshaw rehabilitation model: Drawing on the Kevadia (Statue of Unity) model, the Court directed the State/its agency to purchase e-rickshaws and provide them on a fixed daily hire to eligible operators, prioritizing genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers and extending benefits to other underprivileged persons, especially Adivasi women. Training costs must be borne by the State. CSR funds may be used, but lack of funds is no excuse.
Allocation and numbers to be determined institutionally: The Matheran Monitoring Committee (under the ESZ Notification and chaired by the Collector, Raigad) shall (a) identify “genuine” pullers through a robust process and (b) determine the number of e‑rickshaws permitted, based on ground realities.
Preserving Matheran’s uniqueness: Authorities must ensure that Matheran’s core identity as a pedestrian hill station is maintained to the extent possible, even with the limited introduction of e‑rickshaws on the designated main road.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents and Authorities Cited

People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235 (PUDR): The Court relied heavily on PUDR to interpret Article 23’s broad prohibition against “traffic in human beings and begar and other similar forms of forced labour.” PUDR established that Article 23 is enforceable against the State and private persons alike, and that “forced labour” encompasses labour not supplied willingly, even if remunerated, especially in conditions of acute economic compulsion where the worker faces a Hobson’s choice. In this judgment, the Court applies the PUDR rationale to conclude that human beings towing other human beings—particularly on hilly terrain and out of economic desperation—violates human dignity and falls afoul of Article 23’s spirit and sweep.

Azad Rickshaw Pullers’ Union v. State of Punjab (1980 Supp SCC 601): Justice Krishna Iyer’s opinion, under the aegis of Article 38’s constitutional promise of social justice, recognized the exploitation and health hazards of cycle rickshaw pullers and urged progressive replacement with mechanical propulsion. The present decision revives and updates that insight, noting the evolution of humane, low-emission e‑rickshaw technology and the State’s positive obligation to rehabilitate workers with dignity-preserving alternatives.

Deference to technocratic expertise (IIT Bombay and NEERI): While not tied to a single citation, the Court reaffirmed a consistent judicial stance: it “cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of experts,” particularly on complex environmental engineering questions. Both IIT Bombay and NEERI concluded that clay paver blocks (and not concrete) with appropriate substructure and drainage are necessary to prevent soil erosion in Matheran’s rain-heavy, horse-trodden hill ecology. The Court adopted their recommendations in full.

2. Legal Reasoning

a) The dignity lens and Article 23: At the core is a constitutional recalibration of mobility policy through the prism of human dignity. The Court’s narrative is explicit: the practice of human beings pulling other humans in a hilly terrain, sustained by the economic vulnerability of the pullers, is incompatible with a constitutional order committed to social and economic justice. PUDR’s capacious reading of Article 23 is invoked to denounce such labour as inherently degrading and to require its abolition, notwithstanding that the practice may be remunerated and “consented to” under economic duress.

b) Social justice and State’s positive obligations: Building on Azad Rickshaw Pullers, the Court transitions from a purely negative prohibition (ending a practice) to a positive directive (rehabilitation through State-facilitated, dignified livelihood). The State’s duties under the Directive Principles—particularly Article 38—are invoked in spirit to mandate a scheme that does not merely outlaw but also uplifts, ensuring employability, training, and equitable access to an e‑rickshaw fleet owned by a public authority and rented at a fixed daily hire.

c) Environmental adjudication guided by experts: On erosion control, the Court explicitly defers to IIT Bombay and NEERI. The scientific findings establish that:

Clay paver blocks resist slippage, reduce water absorption on the surface, and allow better drainage compared to concrete pavers.
The combination of geotextile, sand bedding, cambering, contour bunds, and lateral drains is essential to prevent waterlogging and surface failure, especially under horse traffic and heavy monsoon conditions.
Clay pavers are recyclable, locally producible, and visually compatible with the hill ecology.

The Court therefore approves clay pavers on a single arterial road and forbids their spread to internal or trekking routes, preserving the pedestrian and trekking ethos and the livelihoods of horse-dependent persons.

d) Institutional design and process integrity: Recognizing disputes around identifying “genuine” pullers, the Court vests the Matheran Monitoring Committee (under the ESZ Notification) with the twin tasks of beneficiary identification and fixing the number of e‑rickshaws. This embeds accountability within an existing statutory framework and responds to past concerns about flawed lists and exclusion of genuine workers.

e) A calibrated mobility carve-out within an ESZ: Historically, Matheran’s ESZ regime restricted vehicular movement (save ambulances and fire engines). The Court’s order carefully creates a limited, functional carve‑out for e‑rickshaws on the main artery, under the Committee’s control, without diluting the broader pedestrian identity and the trekking network.

3. Impact and Prospective Significance

On labour and dignity jurisprudence: The judgment powerfully updates Article 23 for contemporary mobility, turning a spotlight on exploitative, dignity-eroding practices masked as “traditional livelihoods.” The principle that economic desperation cannot legitimate inhuman labour practices will likely influence courts and policymakers beyond Matheran—in municipalities that still permit hand-pulled passenger vehicles.

On ESZ infrastructure standards: The decision could become a template for hill stations and protected landscapes: clay pavers (not concrete), permeable sub-bases, geotextiles, cambered roads, drainage lines, and rumble strips; plus a categorical bar on paving trekking routes. It institutionalizes deference to scientific expertise and “light-footprint” design for eco-sensitive areas.

On inclusive transition and gender justice: The Kevadia-inspired daily-hire public fleet model has two virtues: it keeps asset ownership with a public authority (ensuring uniform standards, charging, maintenance, and route discipline) and expands access to underprivileged groups, including Adivasi women. This can catalyze women’s economic participation in tourism economies and reduce capture by middlemen.

On governance capacity: By directing the Monitoring Committee to fix numbers, the Court aligns transport supply with carrying capacity—a core sustainability principle in fragile tourist hotspots. The explicit instruction that “non-availability of funds is no excuse” signals a robust expectation of State capacity, with CSR allowed as a supplementary lever.

On animal-dependent livelihoods and pedestrian character: The decision carefully preserves the trekking network and internal roads for pedestrians and horse-based services, thereby managing the transition without extinguishing equine livelihoods or the distinct experience that defines Matheran.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ): A buffer area around protected ecosystems where activities are regulated to minimize ecological harm. In Matheran’s case, ESZ rules traditionally restrict vehicular traffic and construction intensity.
Article 23 (Forced Labour): A Fundamental Right that prohibits traffic in human beings and forced labour, enforceable against both State and private actors. “Forced” includes work done under economic compulsion where real choice is absent.
Directive Principles (Article 38): Non-justiciable constitutional directives guiding the State to promote social, economic, and political justice. Courts frequently use them to inform remedies that advance dignity and equality.
Continuing Mandamus: A judicial technique used in long-running public interest cases (like Godavarman) where the Court issues iterative directions and retains oversight to ensure on-ground compliance.
Clay paver blocks vs. concrete pavers: Clay pavers are permeable, slip-resistant, locally manufacturable, recyclable, and better suited to hill ecologies; concrete pavers and concrete bedding trap water, increase runoff, and worsen erosion.
Geotextile layer and cambering: Geotextiles provide separation and filtration under the surface, improving drainage and stability. Cambering gives a gentle cross-slope to roads to shed water sideways, preventing ponding and surface damage.
Daily-hire public fleet model: A public authority owns e‑rickshaws, charges them centrally, and hires them out daily at a fixed fee. Drivers keep the surplus, promoting livelihoods while maintaining public control over numbers, quality, and routes.

Key Directions Mapped to Issues

Paver blocks:
- Permitted only on the Dasturi Naka–Shivaji Maharaj Statue road.
- Clay pavers required; any concrete pavers or concrete bedding must be removed.
- Mandatory environmental engineering: non-woven geotextile, sand bedding, cambering, contour bunds, lateral drains, rumble strips; sandblasting before monsoon to reduce slipperiness.
- No pavers on internal roads or trekking routes.
Hand-pulled carts/rickshaws:
- Practice to be stopped in a phased manner, completed within six months.
- Declared incompatible with Article 23 and human dignity.
E‑rickshaws:
- State/its agency to purchase and provide on daily hire; training costs to be borne by the State.
- Priority to genuine hand cart/rickshaw pullers; remaining allotted to underprivileged persons, preferably Adivasi women.
- Number of e‑rickshaws and beneficiary identification to be decided by the Matheran Monitoring Committee chaired by the Collector, Raigad.
- CSR funds may be used; funding scarcity is not a valid excuse.
Character of Matheran: Must remain a pedestrian hill station to the greatest extent possible; the limited e‑rickshaw carve‑out is to serve essential access while protecting trekking and equine livelihoods on internal routes.

Why This Judgment Matters

Establishes a dignity-first test for transport in fragile zones: The Court converts long-standing moral unease into a justiciable standard: if a mobility practice erodes human dignity and persists due to structural poverty, it cannot be preserved under the banner of “tradition.” This reframing can guide municipal transport bylaws across India.

Sets a replicable environmental design code: In hills and ESZs, the judgment’s acceptance of clay pavers, geotextiles, and drainage design—paired with a ban on paving trekking routes—offers a legally validated playbook for erosion control without urbanizing sensitive landscapes.

Demonstrates “just transition” in action: By pairing prohibition with rehabilitation (publicly owned e‑rickshaws, training, priority to affected workers, and affirmative inclusion of Adivasi women), the Court models a rights-affirming pathway for transitioning away from harmful practices while expanding livelihoods.

Implementation Notes and Considerations

Beneficiary verification: The Committee should adopt a transparent, multi-source verification (historical licenses, previous municipal records, community attestations) and a structured appeal process to avoid exclusion of genuine pullers.
Capacity and carrying limits: Numbers of e‑rickshaws should be tied to visitor footfall, road width, emergency access, and environmental thresholds. Adaptive caps and periodic review can prevent congestion.
Training and safety: Mandatory driver training (vehicle operation, hill driving, basic maintenance, tourist safety, first aid) and periodic certification will be critical.
Charging and maintenance hubs: Centralized depots to charge, inspect, and maintain the public fleet will maintain service quality and minimize environmental impact.
Conflict avoidance with horse routes: Clear route demarcation, signage, and time windows can minimize interaction between e‑rickshaws and horse traffic, reserving internal/trekking routes exclusively for pedestrians and horse-based services.
Monitoring and grievance redressal: A public dashboard (numbers deployed, beneficiaries, complaints resolved, maintenance cycles) can enhance legitimacy and deter capture.

Conclusion

This judgment is a pivotal contribution at the intersection of constitutional dignity, environmental governance, and inclusive mobility. It does three things at once: it condemns and abolishes a demeaning practice under Article 23; it upholds expert-led, eco-sensitive infrastructure design suited to a monsoon-prone hill ecology; and it forges a humane rehabilitation pathway that prioritizes those historically dependent on the very practice being outlawed, with a special window for Adivasi women.

By preserving the core pedestrian and trekking identity of Matheran while introducing a narrow, supervised e‑rickshaw corridor, the Court demonstrates that protection of environment, heritage, and livelihoods can be harmonized with a dignity-centric mobility paradigm. Its reliance on IIT Bombay and NEERI solidifies a jurisprudence of scientific deference in environmental adjudication, while its invocation of PUDR and Azad Rickshaw Pullers reinvigorates the constitutional commitment to social justice. As a replicable template, this “Matheran model” offers lawmakers and urban planners across India a principled route to retire exploitative practices without abandoning the workers who depend on them, thereby transforming constitutional promises into lived realities.