S. RAJASEEKARAN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Summary

In a 2012 public interest petition on road safety, the Court, noting the rising share of pedestrian deaths and the large number of two-wheeler deaths attributed to not wearing helmets, issued interim directions on five matters: footpaths, pedestrian crossings, helmet enforcement, wrong-lane driving, and dazzling headlights, strobe lights and hooters. It directed audits under the IRC pedestrian safety guidelines, grievance redressal, strict enforcement, and the framing of rules by States under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months.

Issues

1. What directions were required to secure the safety of pedestrians on footpaths and at pedestrian crossings, given encroachments, poor infrastructure and non-implementation of the IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety.
2. Whether the authorities were enforcing the statutory requirement of protective headgear for riders and pillion riders of two-wheelers.
3. What measures were needed against wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking, and against dazzling LED headlights, unauthorised red-blue strobe lights and siren-like hooters.
4. Whether States and Union Territories should be directed to frame rules under the Motor Vehicles Act on pedestrian access and road design standards.

Provisions considered

• Section 138(1A) and 138(2)(h), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Noting the State's power to make rules regulating access of pedestrians and non-mechanically propelled vehicles to public places and national highways and prohibiting use of footpaths by motor vehicles, the Court directed States and UTs to notify such rules within six months if not already framed. (¶¶ 16, 35.16)
• Section 198-A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Read as obliging designated authorities, contractors, consultants and concessionaires to follow prescribed road design, construction and maintenance standards, with a penalty where failure causes death or disability; the Court directed that it be invoked to hold officials and contractors liable for pedestrian deaths due to infrastructural or design failures. (¶¶ 16, 35.10)
• Sections 210-C and 210-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Rule-making powers for road design standards; the Court noted the Central rules made under Section 210-C and directed States and UTs to frame rules under Section 210-D for roads other than national highways within six months. (¶¶ 16, 17, 35.17)
• Rule 166, Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2020)Requires design, construction and maintenance of roads to follow IRC standards; the Court observed that the IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety (IRC 103-2022) are thereby binding for national highways and perhaps on States unless specified otherwise, and directed audits of footpaths and crossings for conformity. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 25, 35.1, 35.2)
• Sections 128, 129 and 194-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Noting the mandate to wear protective headgear and the penalty of fine and licence disqualification, the Court directed strict enforcement, including through camera-based e-enforcement, with figures of persons penalised, challan amounts and licences suspended to be reported. (¶¶ 28, 29, 35.13)
• Sections 184 and 206; Rule 5 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Noted as penalising lane indiscipline and dangerous driving and requiring keep-left and overtaking discipline; the Court directed measures to enforce lane discipline. (¶¶ 30, 31, 35.14)
• Section 215(3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The District Road Safety Committees constituted under it were directed to address pedestrian safety mandatorily in their monthly meetings. (¶ 35.12)

Held

• Safe, encroachment-free footpaths are a judicially recognised right of pedestrians; NHAI, State Governments and municipal authorities are under a duty to build proper footpaths and provide safe crossing opportunities, and no one may use footpaths for private purposes. (¶ 24)
• The IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety should be implemented to the extent possible, beginning with high-footfall places and accident-prone spots identified from existing data. Road-owning agencies in the 50 million-plus cities and NHAI must audit footpaths and pedestrian crossings, identify deficiencies and fix timelines, assess encroachment hotspots, and upgrade subways and foot over bridges. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 35.1, 35.2, 35.3, 35.4, 35.5)
• The agencies were to survey the need for additional pedestrian crossings, aiming at about 20 per cent of roads in the 50 cities within a year, with first priority to the Mathura Road crossing at the Delhi High Court and National Zoological Garden, to be completed within seven months. (¶ 35.6)
• State Governments, municipal authorities and NHAI must create an online grievance redressal mechanism for footpath encroachment, maintenance and requests for crossings, with time-bound responses and review by higher authorities. (¶ 35.11)
• Helmet rules must be strictly enforced by States, UTs and NHAI, including through cameras, and enforcement data reported to the Court; lane discipline must be enforced with automated cameras, graduated fines and engineering measures. (¶¶ 35.13, 35.14)
• Dazzling headlights, unauthorised red-blue strobe lights and siren-like hooters endanger pedestrians and drivers; MoRTH and State authorities must prescribe luminance and beam-angle limits checked at PUC and fitness testing, enforce a complete ban on unauthorised strobes and hooters by seizure and penalties, and run awareness campaigns. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35.15)
• States and UTs must, within six months and if not already done, notify rules under Section 138(1A) on pedestrian access and under Section 210-D on design, construction and maintenance standards for roads other than national highways. (¶¶ 35.16, 35.17)

Result

Interim directions issued on pedestrian infrastructure, helmets, lane discipline, headlights, strobe lights and hooters, and framing of rules; matter to be listed after seven months to report compliance and further progress.