Yesterday, the Delhi High Court seeks a response from the Delhi government on a public interest litigation (PIL) highlighting alleged lapses in the enforcement of regulations governing e-rickshaws in the national capital.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the concerned authorities and directed them to file their replies within eight weeks.

The petition was filed by Manish Parashar against the Delhi government, its Transport Department, the Delhi Traffic Police, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Parashar stated that in August 2025, his eight-year-old daughter lost her life after being hit by an e-rickshaw that was allegedly being driven recklessly in violation of prescribed norms.

According to the petitioner, e-rickshaws operating in Delhi are often structurally unsafe, uninsured, and pose serious risks to public safety. He contended that the widespread non-compliance with regulatory norms has resulted in frequent accidents and fatalities, infringing the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The plea pointed out that despite the existence of several regulatory frameworks—such as the Central Motor Vehicles (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, prescribed safety standards, and the E-Rickshaw Sewa Scheme, 2014—these provisions are routinely ignored on the ground.

Parashar further submitted that he had approached the concerned authorities seeking action but received no response, compelling him to move the High Court.

The petition seeks directions for strict enforcement of e-rickshaw regulations, imposition of a cap on registrations, rigorous compliance with traffic rules, and seizure of non-compliant vehicles. It also calls for the creation of a compensatory fund to support victims in cases of injury, disability, or loss of life arising from e-rickshaw accidents.

The matter is listed for further hearing on March 18.

Advocates Gaurav Arya and Naveen Bamel appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Manish Parashar v. GNCTD & Ors.