'Roundabout On Flyover Unheard Of': MP High Court On Design Of New Flyover In Jabalpur, Asks State To Ensure No Accidents Take Place

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday (September 22), disposed of a PIL for installing view cutters on a newly inaugurated 7-km flyover connecting Madan Mahal to Damoh Naka in Jabalpur to safeguard the privacy of the adjoining residents, while asking the State to consider taking steps so that no accidents take place.

During the hearing court orally remarked that a roundabout on a flyover was unheard of. 

The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed the PIL seeking to safeguard the privacy as well as to reduce the noise pollution that the residents are suffering from.

Senior Counsel Aditya Sanghi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted before a division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf that the flyover cuts across some of the most populous and densely located areas of the city.

He argued that the flyover lacked proper signposts, speed limits and police monitoring, leading to multiple accidents. 

He said that in the absence of speed limits and lack of police monitoring, the flyover had become a 'racing point' for bikers. Additionally, with the upcoming festive season, particularly Dusshera celebrations, said to be the third largest in the country after Kolkata and Mysore, the traffic on the flyover was expected to increase. 

The senior counsel further highlighted that the flyover lacks proper U-turns and direction signposts, leading to major accidents and the deaths of many.

Referring to the Indore Truck Rampage incident, the senior counsel stated, "Everyday such type of major accident occurs. Major accidents are taking place because at the time of landing, there is no U-turn. Suddenly, a person where he lands, there is no U-turn, there is a complete bottleneck". 

The bench, after examining the photographs of the flyover, expressed concerns over the design of the same.

On the presence of a roundabout on a flyover the court orally said, "We do not know how successful this would be. A roundabout on a flyover is unheard-of concept".

When the state maintained that there was no disruption and that the traffic was running smoothly, the bench remarked,

"No disrupting, there will be traffic jams. Show us one round about where it is successful. People in India don't know how to manoeuvre roundabouts... You cannot have a roundabout on a flyover; what if there is a traffic jam? What will happen? There is no way people will go". 

On lack of dividers the court orally said "if there is no divider, there will be a choke block traffic jam over here, and you will have nowhere to get people out. Because people have the habit of going the wrong way, so all three sides' people will be coming and going and stuck at the roundabout, and there will be no way that you'll be able to take them off".

However, after the state stood firm on its stance regarding traffic, the court remarked "we are foreseeing that it is likely to happen because every roundabout have traffic jams". The state also submitted that the petition had directly approached the High Court without first making a representation to the concerned authorities. It further assured the court that it would explore the possibility and feasibility of the suggested measures. 

The bench thereafter in its order dictated: "Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a public interest litigation seeking directions to respondents to install view cutters so that the noise from the flyover does not travel beyond the flyover as well as the residents adjoining the flyover are not put to any inconvenience. Further, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the flyover has become a place of entertainment by youngsters who are riding their bikes, etc, at high speed and even making reels on the flyover, thereby disrupting the traffic, and accidents are also being caused because of the said reason. He further submits that there are not enough signposts, and that is why some people are losing their way and then returning onto the flyover on the wrong side, causing accidents. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the ensuing festivals, there is a likelihood that the traffic would increase and traffic jams may occur.  

It noted the Additional Advocate General's submission for the State that the "state shall explore possibililty and feasibility of installing view cutters, as also shall ensure that there are sufficient sign posts before and on the flyover as well as on the entry and exit points and also deploy sufficient manpower to ensure there is no traffic jam or accidents caused on he flyover". 

"In view of said assurance, this petition is disposed of, directing respondents to consider the feasibility and viability of installing view cutters and further to install sufficient signposts and deploy sufficient manpower to ensure that there is no traffic jam and/or accidents"" the court said. 

Case Title: Ku Alka Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP - 37365/2025]

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 196

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi

For State: Additional Advocate General Harpreet Singh Ruprah