are arteries of swift movement, designed to bridge distances with unprecedented speed. The inception of these roads was envisioned for swiftmoving vehicles to alleviate traffic congestion and provide a faster, more efficient mode of transport. In the matter before us – a Public Interest Litigation (“ PIL ”) – we are tasked with addressing concerns over slowmoving vehicles plying on these expressways, which not only deviate from the expressway’s primary purpose but potentially jeopardize public safety. We are fully conscious that the management of traffic, including the enforcement of speed limits and vehicle types, traditionally resides with the executive, a realm rooted in their administrative and regulatory functions. However, the judiciary’s role is not to be minimized or eclipsed, especially when citizens invoke their right to a safer transit environment, a right intrinsically linked to the broader right to life and personal liberty. The documents presented to this Court signify the government’s earlier commitments: that expressways would cater primarily, if not exclusively, to high-speed traffic. Such a vision, while aligning with the very definition of “expressways,” also underscores the importance of maintaining their integrity, both, for safety and functional efficiency. Circumspect about overstepping into administrative functions, finding itself at a juncture where the significance of the issue, buttressed by the government’s own commitments, warrants judicial intervention, this Court treads with caution, wary of encroaching upon executive’s domain.
