Supreme Court’s 2025 Judgment on Road Safety: Legal Accountability for Pedestrian Protection and Safer Roads
A Critical Legal Analysis of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2012) Order dated 07 oct. 2025
By Amarjeet Singh, Advocate
Legal and Public Policy Expert
(www.publicrightaction.blogspot.com)
I. Introduction: Road Safety as a Constitutional Imperative
The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 1189), delivered on 7 October 2025, marks a watershed in India’s evolving road safety jurisprudence. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued sweeping, mandatory directions to governments and statutory bodies, translating road safety norms into enforceable constitutional duties.
What began as a public interest petition in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a noted orthopaedic surgeon, has over the years transformed into a judicially guided national road safety program. The case now stands as India’s longest-running and most comprehensive judicial initiative addressing systemic transport and infrastructure risks.
The 2025 order expands the judicial approach from enforcement-centric directions (helmets, licensing, enforcement) to infrastructure-based safety, recognizing that design, governance, and accountability are equally crucial in preventing fatalities.
II. Background and Judicial Trajectory
Since its inception, this litigation has shaped the governance of road safety in India:
-
2014: The Supreme Court constituted the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (SCCoRS) under Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, setting a precedent for quasi-regulatory oversight.
-
2017 Orders: Emphasized mandatory enforcement of helmet and seat belt laws, identification of black spots, and establishment of State Road Safety Councils and Lead Agencies.
-
2019–2023 Orders: Monitored implementation of Section 215D of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, requiring States to form Road Safety Boards.
-
2025 Judgment: For the first time, the Court issued specific, measurable, and time-bound directions covering pedestrian safety, helmet use, lane discipline, and the regulation of vehicle lighting systems.
This continuity underscores the Supreme Court’s role not merely as an adjudicator but as a constitutional enforcer of governance standards.
III. Facts and Statistical Context
The judgment cites alarming data from the “Road Accidents in India 2023” report by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH):
-
1,72,890 deaths in 2023, of which 35,221 (20.4%) were pedestrians.
-
Pedestrian fatalities rose 7.3% from 2022, with over 11,000 deaths on national highways alone.
-
54,000 two-wheeler deaths were due to non-wearing of helmets.
The Court observed that these figures amount to a “national emergency”, comparable to casualties from major disasters, yet neglected by State administrations.
IV. Key Legal Questions and Judicial Findings
The 2025 order addresses five principal issues:
-
Safety of pedestrians and infrastructure (footpaths and crossings).
-
Wearing of helmets and enforcement of Sections 128–129 of the MV Act.
-
Wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking.
-
Use of dazzling LED headlights, unauthorized strobe lights, and hooters.
-
Non-framing of State rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the MV Act.
The Court held that failure to ensure safe pedestrian facilities constitutes a dereliction of statutory and constitutional duties. It linked the issue directly to the right to life under Article 21, observing that “safe mobility is an essential component of a dignified existence.”
V. Operative Directions (Paras 35.1–35.17): Scope and Implications
The judgment provides a granular, enforceable roadmap. The directions are summarized below with corresponding legal implications:
1. Pedestrian Safety Audits (Paras 35.1–35.2)
-
All road-owning agencies in 50 million-plus cities and NHAI must audit existing footpaths and pedestrian crossings, beginning with high-footfall areas and vulnerable zones.
-
These audits must identify design, width, height, and surface deficiencies and fix timelines for rectification.
Legal implication: This creates a statutory obligation under Sections 198A and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, making road-owning authorities liable for design-based deaths or injuries.
2. Control of Encroachments and Continuous Monitoring (Para 35.3)
-
Mandates automated, camera-based monitoring systems, GIS mapping, and periodic clearance drives to maintain pedestrian zones.
Legal basis: Reinforces enforcement under Sections 201 and 210B of the MV Act. It operationalizes prior rulings in Olga Tellis, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, and M.C. Mehta (2019).
3. Safety of Subways and Foot Overbridges (Para 35.4)
-
Requires audits of security features, CCTV coverage, panic buttons, and lighting, with special focus on women’s safety.
Policy shift: Recognizes “fear-based non-use” of infrastructure as a form of functional exclusion, linking road design to gender-sensitive mobility.
4. Standards for Crossings and Signage (Para 35.5)
-
Directs illumination of crossings, placement of barriers, and application of IRC:35-2015 and IRC:67-2012 standards.
Implication: These standards, incorporated by reference into Rule 166 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (2020), acquire binding force through judicial endorsement.
5. Creation of New Crossings (Para 35.6)
-
States and NHAI must conduct surveys within one year to plan new crossings, starting with Delhi High Court–Zoo stretch on Mathura Road, to be completed in seven months.
Significance: This is the first time the Court has issued location-specific infrastructure directions, transforming judicial recommendations into direct implementation mandates.
6. Accountability and Personal Liability (Para 35.10)
-
Invokes Section 198A to fix personal liability of officials and contractors for pedestrian deaths caused by faulty road design.
Constitutional relevance: Converts negligence in infrastructure maintenance into actionable constitutional negligence under Article 21.
7. Grievance Redress Mechanism (Para 35.11)
-
Orders States, NHAI, and Municipalities to create online portals for reporting damaged footpaths, encroachments, or missing crossings, with time-bound redress.
Legal innovation: Introduces a citizen-driven compliance tool akin to “Right to Safe Infrastructure,” expanding participatory governance under Articles 243W and 243X.
8. Strengthening District Road Safety Committees (Para 35.12)
-
Makes it mandatory for DRSCs to review pedestrian safety monthly.
Federal implication: Reinforces vertical accountability from district to national level, ensuring uniform application of road safety law.
9. Helmet Enforcement (Para 35.13)
-
Directs all States and UTs to enforce Sections 128–129 and 194D through electronic monitoring and submit compliance data (challans, suspensions, fines) to the Court.
Interpretation: Recognizes enforcement failure as a constitutional dereliction affecting the right to life.
10. Wrong-Lane Driving and Lane Discipline (Para 35.14)
-
Mandates automated cameras, rumble strips, and digital dashboards for real-time lane violation monitoring.
Integration: Embeds traffic discipline into preventive governance, connecting “3Es” (Engineering, Enforcement, Education) as systemic tools for compliance.
11. Regulation of LED Lights and Hooters (Para 35.15)
-
MoRTH and States must prescribe maximum permissible luminance and beam angles, enforce bans on unauthorized red-blue strobes and sirens, and conduct nationwide awareness drives.
Enforceability: Expands the meaning of “road safety” beyond infrastructure to include sensory and behavioral risks, broadening the statutory scope of Section 110(1) of the MV Act.
12. Rulemaking by States (Paras 35.16–35.17)
-
All States and UTs must notify rules within six months under:
-
Section 138(1A): Regulating pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle access;
-
Section 210-D: Prescribing design and maintenance standards for non-National Highways.
-
Legal consequence: Failure to notify these rules would constitute non-compliance with statutory duties and could invite contempt under Article 144.
VI. Constitutional and Jurisprudential Analysis
A. Road Safety as a Fundamental Right
By linking road safety to Article 21, the Court constitutionalizes what was earlier a policy concern. It extends the ratio of M.C. Mehta (vehicular pollution case) and Olga Tellis to urban mobility, thus framing the right to safe roads as part of the right to life, dignity, and environment.
B. Accountability through Statutory Enforcement
Invoking Section 198A (penal liability for road design failure) represents a jurisprudential breakthrough — holding public officials and contractors directly accountable for infrastructure-related deaths.
C. Cooperative Federalism in Practice
The Court harmonizes the Concurrent List (Entry 35)—covering road safety—by directing coordinated rulemaking between MoRTH and States. It operationalizes cooperative federalism through judicial supervision.
D. Judicial Policy-Making
This judgment epitomizes what scholars call “transformative constitutionalism” — using judicial authority to advance social and administrative reform in the absence of executive initiative.
VII. Compliance and Monitoring
The Court ordered the case to be listed after seven months for a compliance review, thereby retaining continuing mandamus jurisdiction. This ensures sustained oversight similar to environmental PILs under T.N. Godavarman or Vineet Narain principles.
VIII. Conclusion: From Enforcement to Design-Based Justice
The 2025 Rajaseekaran judgment redefines the contours of public law in India. It shifts the discourse on road safety from individual negligence to institutional accountability and from enforcement to design-based prevention.
By embedding pedestrian safety within constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has transformed road safety from a bureaucratic responsibility into a legal right — enforceable, measurable, and judicially protected.
The success of this judgment will now depend on whether governments treat it not as an order to comply with, but as a mandate to reform.
Author: Amarjeet Panghal
Legal and Public Policy Expert
✉️ publicrightaction.blogspot.com
📩 publicrightaction@gmail.com
#RoadSafety #SupremeCourt #TrafficSafety #India #PublicHealth
No comments:
Post a Comment