Supreme Court Directs Implementation of Road Safety Norms: Dr. S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 1040

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can the alarming rate of road accident deaths be reduced through stricter enforcement of safety rules and better post-accident care? The Supreme Court of India, in a public interest litigation, took up this crucial issue to address the increasing loss of life and limbs due to road accidents. The Court’s intervention aimed to ensure that existing legislations, reports, and recommendations for road safety are effectively implemented. The bench comprised Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta. Justice Madan B. Lokur authored the judgment.

Case Background

Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon and President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. He highlighted the severe loss of life and limbs caused by road accidents, drawing from his daily experiences at Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. Dr. Rajaseekaran emphasized the need for strict enforcement of road safety rules and appropriate treatment for accident victims. He cited data from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways indicating a rise in road accidents, with a significant number of victims in the economically active age group of 25-65 years.

The petition was initially opposed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, but it was later treated as a public interest litigation due to the petitioner’s lack of personal interest. The matter was then viewed in a non-adversarial manner, focusing on public interest.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, recognizing the importance of the issue, constituted a Committee on Road Safety under the chairmanship of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, a former judge of the Supreme Court. The Committee was officially notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) on 30th May, 2014. Despite initial bureaucratic delays and lack of adequate infrastructure, the Committee commenced its work in earnest from 15th/16th May, 2014 and submitted 12 reports to the Court.

The Court noted that the State Governments were not responding positively to the recommendations made by the Committee. Consequently, the Secretary of the MoRTH was directed to convene a meeting with his counterparts from all the States and Union Territories to discuss the reports and recommendations of the Committee. The Court also expressed concern over the casual approach of the Government of India in providing facilities to the Committee.

Despite repeated directions, the State Governments showed a lack of cooperation, often sending junior officials to meetings instead of the Transport Secretaries. This lack of seriousness prompted the Court to emphasize that road safety issues should be taken seriously by both the Central and State Governments.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the implementation of road safety measures and the enforcement of existing legal provisions. Key legal provisions include:

• Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section mandates the constitution of a State Road Safety Council. The court emphasized the need for all states and union territories to establish these councils and ensure they periodically review road safety laws and take remedial steps. The judgment notes that “All States have already constituted a Road Safety Council in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
• Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017: Notified by the MoRTH, these regulations mandate lane driving and provide protocols for overtaking. The Court directed strict implementation of these regulations by all States and Union Territories. The judgment states, “The Notification should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly.”

The Court also referred to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017, which addresses various aspects of road safety, including driver training and the establishment of a National Road Safety Board.

Arguments

The learned Amicus Curiae presented a detailed chart outlining the issues, the views of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), and the orders prayed for. The MoRTH largely agreed with the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae, indicating a non-adversarial stance.

The arguments were structured around several key areas, including:

• Road Safety Policy: The Amicus Curiae argued for the implementation of State Road Safety Policies formulated by the Committee on Road Safety. The MoRTH agreed, noting that most states had already formulated such policies.
• State Road Safety Council: The Amicus Curiae emphasized the need for functioning State Road Safety Councils. The MoRTH concurred, stating that most states had already constituted these councils.
• Lead Agency: The Amicus Curiae proposed the establishment of a Lead Agency in each state to handle licensing, vehicle registration, and road safety matters. The MoRTH agreed, noting that some states had already established such agencies.
• Road Safety Fund: The Amicus Curiae suggested the creation of a Road Safety Fund in each state. The MoRTH agreed, stating that some states had already created such funds.
• Road Safety Action Plan: The Amicus Curiae proposed that each state formulate a Road Safety Action Plan with annual targets for reducing road accidents. The MoRTH agreed with this suggestion.
• District Road Safety Committee: The Amicus Curiae argued for the constitution of District Road Safety Committees. The MoRTH concurred with this proposal.
• Engineering Improvement: The Amicus Curiae highlighted the need for improving road quality and design. The MoRTH agreed to review and enforce protocols for road design and identification of black spots.
• Traffic Calming Measures: The Amicus Curiae proposed the adoption of traffic calming measures in accident-prone areas. The MoRTH agreed to this suggestion.
• Road Safety Audits: The Amicus Curiae emphasized the need for road safety audits. The MoRTH agreed in principle but noted a shortage of qualified auditors.
• Engineering Design of New Roads: The Amicus Curiae proposed that new road projects should undergo design audits. The MoRTH agreed that road safety audits should include the design stage for projects of 5 km or more.
• Working Group on Engineering: The Amicus Curiae sought the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Group on Engineering. The MoRTH agreed to implement these recommendations.
• Drivers’ Training: The Amicus Curiae suggested that licenses be renewed after every five years subject to stringent criteria. The MoRTH stated that this was part of the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Bill, 2017.
• Lane Driving: The Amicus Curiae proposed strict enforcement of lane driving. The MoRTH stated that the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations 2017 already mandate lane driving.
• Road Safety Equipment: The Amicus Curiae sought the acquisition of cameras and surveillance equipment. The MoRTH stated that the Bureau of Police Research and Training had already prepared a report on the subject.
• Alcohol and Road Safety: The Amicus Curiae sought effective implementation of the prohibition on the sale of liquor along highways. The MoRTH stated that it had written to the States for compliance.
• Road Safety Education: The Amicus Curiae proposed the incorporation of road safety education in school curriculums. The MoRTH agreed with the suggestion.
• Speed Governors: The Amicus Curiae sought the fitment of approved speed governors in transport vehicles. The MoRTH stated that it had already issued guidelines in this regard.
• Emergency Medical Care: The Amicus Curiae proposed the establishment of trauma care centers in every district. The MoRTH stated that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare was implementing a Trauma Care Programme.
• Universal Accident Helpline Number: The Amicus Curiae proposed the establishment of a universal accident helpline number. The MoRTH stated that the National Health Mission already provides a call center number (108).
• Permanent Road Safety Cell: The Amicus Curiae proposed the establishment of a permanent Road Safety Cell in the National Highways Authority of India. The MoRTH stated that it had already established such cells.
• Data Collection: The Amicus Curiae sought the preparation of a computerized format for collecting road accident data. The MoRTH stated that it had already evolved a new format for recording accident data.
• GPS: The Amicus Curiae proposed the installation of GPS and GIS mapping in vehicles. The MoRTH stated that it had already mandated the fitment of location tracking devices in public service vehicles.
• Bus/Truck Body Building Code: The Amicus Curiae sought notification of a Bus/Truck Body Building Code. The MoRTH stated that it had already notified the Bus Body Code and the Truck Body Code.
• ABS, Air Bags and Headlights: The Amicus Curiae proposed the installation of ABS and air bags in all cars and the use of “Automatic Headlights On” systems in two-wheelers. The MoRTH stated that it had already notified the fitment of ABS and AHO.
• Crash Test: The Amicus Curiae proposed crash tests for all Light Motor Vehicles by accredited laboratories. The MoRTH stated that it had notified crash standards and that testing agencies are required to be accredited.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section of the judgment. However, the issues can be inferred from the directions given by the Court, which are based on the submissions of the Amicus Curiae and the responses of the MoRTH. The key issues addressed by the Court include:

1. Whether State Governments and Union Territories have formulated and implemented Road Safety Policies.
2. Whether State Road Safety Councils have been constituted and are functioning effectively.
3. Whether Lead Agencies have been established to coordinate road safety activities.
4. Whether Road Safety Funds have been created and are being utilized for road safety measures.
5. Whether Road Safety Action Plans have been formulated to reduce road accidents.
6. Whether District Road Safety Committees have been constituted and are functioning effectively.
7. Whether engineering improvements are being made to roads to enhance safety.
8. Whether traffic calming measures are being adopted in accident-prone areas.
9. Whether Road Safety Audits are being conducted to identify and rectify safety issues.
10. Whether the design of new roads incorporates safety considerations.
11. Whether the recommendations of the Working Group on Engineering are being implemented.
12. Whether lane driving is being strictly enforced.
13. Whether adequate road safety equipment is being used to detect traffic violations.
14. Whether the prohibition on the sale of liquor along highways is being effectively implemented.
15. Whether road safety education is being incorporated into school curriculums.
16. Whether speed governors are being fitted in transport vehicles.
17. Whether trauma care centers are being established in every district.
18. Whether a universal accident helpline number is being effectively utilized.
19. Whether permanent road safety cells have been established.
20. Whether road accident data is being collected and made public.
21. Whether location tracking devices are being fitted in public service vehicles.
22. Whether Bus/Truck Body Building Codes are being implemented.
23. Whether vehicles are being fitted with ABS, air bags, and automated headlights.
24. Whether crash tests are being conducted by accredited laboratories.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to arrive at its decision. These authorities are categorized by the legal point they support:

Cases:

• State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, (2017) 2 SCC 281: This case was cited in the context of the prohibition of the grant of licenses for the sale of liquor along national and state highways. The Supreme Court had prohibited the grant of licenses for the sale of liquor along national and state highways and over a distance of 500 meters from the outer edge of the highway throughout the territory of India.
• Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286: This case was cited in the context of emergency medical care, emphasizing the importance of providing treatment soon after a road accident. The Supreme Court had laid down certain directions which should be followed in cases of emergency medical care.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article provides the right to constitutional remedies, under which Dr. S. Rajaseekaran filed the petition.
• Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section mandates the constitution of a State Road Safety Council. The court emphasized the need for all states and union territories to establish these councils and ensure they periodically review road safety laws and take remedial steps.
• Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017: These regulations, notified by the MoRTH, mandate lane driving and provide protocols for overtaking. The Court directed strict implementation of these regulations by all States and Union Territories.
• Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989: These rules were mentioned in the context of the crash tests for all light motor vehicles, which are required to be conducted by the testing agency notified under Rule 126.

Judgment

The Court’s judgment is a comprehensive directive aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of road safety measures across India. The Court adopted a non-adversarial approach, relying heavily on the submissions of the Amicus Curiae and the responses of the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH). The Court’s directions were based on the premise that most states and union territories had already formulated policies and established institutions for road safety. The Court directed the remaining states and union territories to comply with the recommendations by a specified timeline. The Court also directed the MoRTH to take steps to ensure the implementation of various safety measures.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the submissions but rather focused on ensuring that the existing legal framework and recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety were implemented. The authorities cited by the Court, including the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu, were used to support the need for effective enforcement of road safety measures and the provision of emergency medical care. The Court emphasized the importance of a multi-faceted approach to road safety, including engineering improvements, traffic calming measures, and driver training.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following final directions:

1. State Road Safety Policy: The remaining States and Union Territories were directed to formulate their Road Safety Policy by 31st January, 2018.
2. State Road Safety Council: The remaining Union Territories were directed to constitute their State Road Safety Council by 31st January, 2018.
3. Lead Agency: The remaining States and Union Territories were directed to establish a Lead Agency for coordinating all road safety activities by 31st January, 2018.
4. Road Safety Fund: The remaining States and Union Territories were directed to establish a Road Safety Fund by 31st March, 2018. The fines collected for traffic violations were to be utilized for road safety expenses.
5. Road Safety Action Plan: The States and Union Territories were directed to prepare a Road Safety Action Plan with annual targets for reducing road accidents and fatality rates by 31st March, 2018.
6. District Road Safety Committee: The States were directed to constitute District Road Safety Committees by 31st January, 2018.
7. Engineering Improvement: The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) was directed to publish a protocol for identifying black spots and improving road design.
8. Traffic Calming Measures: The Road Safety Committees were directed to study and implement traffic calming measures as an ongoing exercise.
9. Road Safety Audits: The Committee on Road Safety and MoRTH were directed to take steps for capacity building of road safety auditors.
10. Engineering Design of New Roads: The Court directed that design stage audit should be included for new road projects of 5 km or more.
11. Working Group on Engineering: The Court directed the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Group on Engineering as prayed by the Amicus Curiae and accepted by the MoRTH.
12. Drivers’ Training: No specific orders were passed, as this is the subject matter of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017.
13. Lane Driving: The Court directed strict implementation of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017.
14. Road Safety Equipment: The Court directed the implementation of the recommendations of the Bureau of Police Research and Training.
15. Alcohol and Road Safety: The MoRTH was directed to issue quarterly advisories to the States for effective implementation of the Court’s orders.
16. Road Safety Education: The States were directed to consider incorporating road safety education in the school curriculum by 1st April, 2018.
17. Speed Governors: The MoRTH was directed to upload unique identification numbers of speed governors in the VAHAN database.
18. Emergency Medical Care: The States and Union Territories were directed to set up trauma care centers and ambulances for providing timely medical assistance.
19. Universal Accident Helpline Number: The Court directed publicity for the existing call center number (108) to activate ambulances quickly.
20. Permanent Road Safety Cell: The States and Union Territories were directed to establish permanent road safety cells by 31st January, 2018.
21. Data Collection: The States and Union Territories were directed to follow the format evolved by the MoRTH for collecting road accident data.
22. GPS: The MoRTH was directed to assist the States in fitting location tracking devices in public service vehicles.
23. Bus/Truck Body Building Code: No further orders were passed, as these were already notified by the MoRTH.
24. ABS, Air Bags and Headlights: No further orders were passed, as these were already notified by the MoRTH.
25. Crash Test: No further orders were passed, as these were already notified by the MoRTH.

Flowchart of Key Directions

Ratio of Deaths to Accidents

Sentiment Analysis