# 13 S.C.R. 508 DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 13 S.C.R. 508
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-12-23
- **Bench:** MAl)AN B. LOKUR, Deepak Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/13-s-c-r-508-dr-s-rajaseekaran-ii-v-union-of-india-ors-31926
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Public interest litigation -
Prayer seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate
treatment of accident victims - Constillltion of Committee on road
safety - Submission of report/recommendations by the Committee -
Howeve1; non-implementation of the recommendations by the
Government ~ Issuance of directions on road safety and the victims
of road accidents by Supreme Court - Directions as regard road
safety policy, road safety fimd, road safety action plan. road safety
audits, road safety cell, road safety equipment and road safety
education issued - Faithful and sincere compliance of the said
directions would save thousands of lives in road accident and crores
of rupees paid in compensation by the insurance companies.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the submissions of the Amicus Curiae
and the response of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
(MoRTH) to the suggestions and keeping in mind issues of road
safety and the interest of those who may be unfortunate victims
of road accidents, the following directions arc issued:
(i) Road Safety Policy: Most of the State Governments and
Union Territories have already framed a Road Safety
Policy. Those that have not framed such a policy namely
Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Delhi, Lakshadweep, Dadra and
Nagar Havcli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to
formulate the Road Safety Policy by 31" January, 2018.
All States and Union Territories are expected to implement
the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and
seriou~sness.
(ii) State Road Safety Council: All States have already
constituted a Road Safety Council in terms of Section 215
508
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
509
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Union Territories of A
Daman and Dlu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands have not constituted the Road Safety
Council as yet. These Union Territories are directed to
constitute the State Road Safety Council on or before 31"
January, 2018. The responsibility and functions of the
B
Council would be as recommended by the Committee on
Road Safety. The State Road Safety Councils should
periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial
steps wherever necessary.
(iii) Lead Agency: Only a few States have established the
Lead Agency as recommended by the Committee on Road C
Safety in its communication of 23'' December, 2014. The
States and Union Territories that have not done so should
establish the Lead Agency on or before 31" January, 2018
in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee
on Road Safety. The Lead Agency would act as the D
Secretariat of the State Road Safety Council and coordinate
all activities such as licensing issues including issues of
driving licences, registration of vehicles, road safety and
features of vehicles, along with other allied matters
including emission norms and other activities as mentioned
· in the communication dated 23.12.2014.
(iv) Road Safety Fund: Some of the States have already
established a Road Safety Fund. Those·States and Union
Territories that have not yet established the Road Safety
Fund sl;.cu1'! do so not later than 31" March, 2018 and
report back to the Committee on Road Safety. The corpus
of the Road Safety Fund woul~ be from the fines collected
for traffic violations and the Fund would be utilized for
meeting expenses relating to road safety.
E
F
(v) Road Safety Action Plan: The purpose of a Road Safety
Action Plan is to reduce .the number of road accidents, as
G
well as the fatality rate. The MoRTH has already requested
all the States and Union Territories to prepare a Road
Safety Action Plan but It appears that the response to this
has been somewhat lukewarm. The State Governments
and Union Territories are therefore directed to urgently H
510
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 31.03.2018 and pnt
it int11 action after giving it due publicity.
(vi) District Roa

## Text

_Characters 0–39,232 of 71,800. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39232 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2017] 13 S.C.R. 508
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II)
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of2012)
NOVEMBER30, 2017
[MAl)AN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Public interest litigation -
Prayer seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate
treatment of accident victims - Constillltion of Committee on road
safety - Submission of report/recommendations by the Committee -
Howeve1; non-implementation of the recommendations by the
Government ~ Issuance of directions on road safety and the victims
of road accidents by Supreme Court - Directions as regard road
safety policy, road safety fimd, road safety action plan. road safety
audits, road safety cell, road safety equipment and road safety
education issued - Faithful and sincere compliance of the said
directions would save thousands of lives in road accident and crores
of rupees paid in compensation by the insurance companies.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the submissions of the Amicus Curiae
and the response of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
(MoRTH) to the suggestions and keeping in mind issues of road
safety and the interest of those who may be unfortunate victims
of road accidents, the following directions arc issued:
(i) Road Safety Policy: Most of the State Governments and
Union Territories have already framed a Road Safety
Policy. Those that have not framed such a policy namely
Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Delhi, Lakshadweep, Dadra and
Nagar Havcli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to
formulate the Road Safety Policy by 31" January, 2018.
All States and Union Territories are expected to implement
the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and
seriou~sness.
(ii) State Road Safety Council: All States have already
constituted a Road Safety Council in terms of Section 215
508
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
509
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Union Territories of A
Daman and Dlu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands have not constituted the Road Safety
Council as yet. These Union Territories are directed to
constitute the State Road Safety Council on or before 31"
January, 2018. The responsibility and functions of the
B
Council would be as recommended by the Committee on
Road Safety. The State Road Safety Councils should
periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial
steps wherever necessary.
(iii) Lead Agency: Only a few States have established the
Lead Agency as recommended by the Committee on Road C
Safety in its communication of 23'' December, 2014. The
States and Union Territories that have not done so should
establish the Lead Agency on or before 31" January, 2018
in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee
on Road Safety. The Lead Agency would act as the D
Secretariat of the State Road Safety Council and coordinate
all activities such as licensing issues including issues of
driving licences, registration of vehicles, road safety and
features of vehicles, along with other allied matters
including emission norms and other activities as mentioned
· in the communication dated 23.12.2014.
(iv) Road Safety Fund: Some of the States have already
established a Road Safety Fund. Those·States and Union
Territories that have not yet established the Road Safety
Fund sl;.cu1'! do so not later than 31" March, 2018 and
report back to the Committee on Road Safety. The corpus
of the Road Safety Fund woul~ be from the fines collected
for traffic violations and the Fund would be utilized for
meeting expenses relating to road safety.
E
F
(v) Road Safety Action Plan: The purpose of a Road Safety
Action Plan is to reduce .the number of road accidents, as
G
well as the fatality rate. The MoRTH has already requested
all the States and Union Territories to prepare a Road
Safety Action Plan but It appears that the response to this
has been somewhat lukewarm. The State Governments
and Union Territories are therefore directed to urgently H
510
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 31.03.2018 and pnt
it int11 action after giving it due publicity.
(vi) District Road Safety Committee: A District Road Safety
Committee is required to be set up by the State
Government for every district in terms of Section 215(3)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As suggested by the
Amicus and agreed to by the MoRTH, the District Road
Safety Committee should be put in place by 31" January,
2018 and should be headed by the Collector of the District
and should include amongst others the Superintendent of
Police, Health Officers, Engineers of the Public Works
Department, representatives of the National Highways
Authority of India, the Road Transport Officer of the
District and members of civil society from the District.
The District Road Safety Committee must hold regular
and periodic meetings to review road safety issues and
take corrective measures.
(vii) Engineering Improvement: It appears that one of the
main reasons for road accidents is the poor quality of roads,
impr(jper design, etc. The MoRTH is of the opinion that
the protocol for road design and identification of black
spots needs to be reviewed and enforced. Accordingly, it
is directed that the MoRTH should publish a protocol for
identification and rectification of black spots and take
necessary steps for improving the design of roads to make
them safe.
(viii) Traffic Calming Measures: It is suggested by the
Amicus that traffic calming measures must be adopted at
accident prone areas. This is agreed to by the MoRTH.
However, such measures will need to be studied and then
put in place. This is an on-going exercise which must be
carried out by the Road Safety Committee with the
assistance of the MoRTH and other stakeholders.
(ix) Road Safety Audits: It is directed that necessary steps
be taken by the Committee on Road Safety as well as by
the Mi>RTH to work in the direction of Road Safety Audits
since there can be little doubt that an audit of road safety
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
511
is "essential to reduce the possibility of road accidents A
through corrective measures.
(x) Engineering Design of New Roads: The Road Safety
Audit should include the design stage audit of new road
projects of 5 kms or more, rather than being based on the
cost of the project.
(XI) Working Group on Engineering: The recommendations
of the Working Group on Engineering (Roads) should be
implemented in the terms prayed for by the Amie us as well
as those accepted by the MoRTH. These would, of course,
be in the nature of interim directions since the National
Road Safety Board is likely to be created as proposed in
the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017.
(xii) Drivers' Training: This is the subject matter of the
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017 and no orders
are required to be passed in this regard.
(xiii) Lane Driving: The MoRTH has already issued Motor
Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 vide GS.R. 634 (E)
dated 23'• June, 2017. The Notification should be
implemented by the State Governments and Union
Territories strictly.
(xiv) Road Safety Equipment: The Bureau of Police
Research and Training has already prepared a Report on
the. subject and has submitted it to the Road Safety
Committee in September, 2015. The recommendations in
the Report should be implemented including acquisition
of cameras and surveillance equipments in detecting traffic
and identifying violators. It is also necessary to set up
special patrol forces along the National Highways and State
Highways for which necessary steps must be taken by the
State Governments and Union Territories.
B
c
D
E
F
G
(xv) Alcohol and Road Safety: The MoR.TH has already
written to the States to comply with orders of this Court in
this regard. The MoRTH may issue further advisories in
this regard on a quarterly basis during the calendar year 2018
so as to serve as a reminder to the State Governments
H
r
. ,
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017) 13 S.C.R.
A
and Union Territories to implement the directions of this
Court .
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(xvi) Road Safety Education: The Amic11s as well as
MoRTH are in agreement that road safety education and
counselling should be incorporated in the curricu)um by
the State Boards by 1" April, 2018. It is directed that the
State Governments may seriously consider this
recommendation and Include Road Safety Education and
Counseling as a part of the school curriculum at the
earliest,
(xvii) Sj>eed Governors: Guidelines in this regard have
already been issued by the MoRTH. The MoRTH has
agreed to upload the Unique Identification Number of the
speed governors in the VAHAN database. This should be
followed up by the MoRTH with expedition.
(xviii) Emergency Medical Care: There is agreem< nt that
at least one Trauma Care Centre should be set up in every
district with necessary facilities and an ambulance. The
State Governments and Union Territories should take up
this recommendation at the earliest since it is on record
that treatment soon after a road accident is crucial fur
saving tl1e life of the victim. The directions Issued in PL
Pormana,nd Kotara v. Union of India should be followed.
(xix) Unlvers11l Accident Helpline Number: The MoRTH
has stated that there is already a call centre number, that
is, 108 provided by the National Health Mission. Due
publicity must be given to this so that an ambulance can
he activated at the earliest whenever necessary.
(xx) Permanent Road Safety Cell: All State Governments
and Union Territories have already been requested by the
MoRTH to set up Road Safety Cells. The State
Governments and Union Territories should establish
Permanent Road Safety Cells by 31" January, 2018.
(xxi) Data Collection: The MoRTH bas already taken
steps for recording accident data and reports through
computerjsed data entry. The State and Union Territories
have been asked to take further action in this regard and
DR. S. RAJASEEK.ARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
513
make the data public for the information of all stakeholders. A
This needs to be followed up and no further orders are
necessary in this regard.
(xxii) GPS : The MoRTH has already notified vide GS.R.
No. 1095 (E) dated 28" November, 2016 mandating the
fitment of vehicle location tracking devices in all public B
service vehicles subject to some exceptions. Since this
has cost implications, the MoRTH may assist the State
Governments and Union Territories to ensure that to the
maximum extent possible and within the shortest time
frame, location tracking devices must be fitted in all public
C
service vehicles as notified.
(xxiii) Bus/Truck-Body Building Code: This has already
been notified by the MoRTH with regard to buses vide
GS.R. No. 287 (E) dated 271• April, 2014 and with regard
to trucks vide GS.R. No. 1034(E) dated 2•• November,
2016. No further orders are necessary in this regard.
D
(xxiv) ABS, Air Bags and Headlights: The MoRTH has
already notified for fitment of ABS in motor cycles vide
GS.R. No. 310(E) dated 16'" March, 2016 and for four
wheelers vide GS.R. No. 120(E) dated tolh February, 2017.
As far as air bags are concerned a standard AIS-145 has
already been notified. As regards automated headlights,
the MoRTH has notified vide GS.R. No. 188(E) dated 22••
February, 2016 for fitment of"Automated Headlights On"
in two wheelers manufactured on or after 1" April, 2017.
No further orders are required in. this regard except the
·faithful implementation of the various notifications issued
by the MoRTH.
(xxv) Crash Test: This too has been notified by the
MoRTH and the test for all light motor vehicles is required
E
F
to be conducted by the testing agency notified under Rule
G
126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. No further
orders are required in this regard except the faithful
implementation of the notifications and crash standards
issued by the MoRTH. (Para 17] [535-A-H; 536-A-H;
537-A-H; 538-A-H; 539-A-H; 540-A-C]
H
514
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
1.2 The directions given are those that have been agreed
upon by the parties and are in addition to and supplement the
directions already given in S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India. The
said directions at the instance of the A111ic11s C11riae and the Justice
K.S. Radhakrishnan Committee on Road Safety and with the
support, cooperation and assistance of the MoRTH, would save
thousands of lives in road accidents and crores of rupees in
compensatioll payable by the insurance companies-provided the
directions ar~ faithfully and sincerely complied with. If there is
any doubt or ~larity required in implementing the directions given,
the concerned State Government or Union Territory is at liberty
to move the Committee on Road Safety. [Paras 18, 19) (540-D-FJ
Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC
286 : (1989) 3 SCR 997; S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of
India (2014) 6 SCC 36: (2014) 5 SCR 444 - referred
to.
[1989] 3 SCR 997
[2014] 5 SCR 444
Case Law Reference
referred to
referred to
Para 17
Para 18
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 295 of2012.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
P. S. Narr-asimha, ASG, D.K. Thakur, S.S. Shamshery, AAGs,
Gopal Subramanium (AC), Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Agarwal,
(AC), Talha Abdul Rahman, Jayavardhan Singh, Pavan Bhushan, Manoj
F
Swamp, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Sajid Imam Naqvi (for Mis Manoj Swarup &
Co.), Krishna Kumar, B. Vinodh Kanna, Ms. Srujana Suman Mund,
S.S. Ray, GS. Makker, Surinder S. Rathi, S. L. Gupta, Rajesh Sharma,
Rajeev Gupta, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Mahabir Singh Mangla, Varinder
Kumar Sharma, M.K. Thakur, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. Prerna Mehta,
G
Dipak K. Nag, Ekansh Bansal, Parmanand Gaur, Bhupesh Narula, K. V.
Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Gopal
Singh, Shreyas Jain, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Ms. Mona Sinha, Ms. Surabhi
Mehta, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms.
Shodhika Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Monika Gosain, Shariq Ahmed,
Varindcr Kumar Sharma, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal
H
Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas,Aditya
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
515
Pratap Singh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar,
A
R. Leishangthem Roshmani KH, Ranjan Mukherjee, Naveen Sharma,
Mishra Saurabh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho,Amit Kr. Singh,
K. Luikang Michael. Z.H. Issac Haiding, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu
Ramasubramanian, Manuraj, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Anidt Raj,
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh
B
Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet (For Mis Arputham
Aruna & Co.), S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Gopal Singh,
Rituraj Biswas, Raja Chatterjee, C.K, Ganguli, Piyush Sachdev,
P. K. Manohar, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Neelesh
Singh Rao, Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja,Advs. for the appearing
parties.
C
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. In this petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon, a public
spirited citizen and President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association has,
inter alia, prayed for enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate
D
treatment of accident victims.
2. The petitioner states that in his capacity as Chairman and Head
of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, he
witnesses daily, the acute loss oflife and limbs caused by road accidents.
He suggests that practical measures need to be taken in a time-bound
and expeditious manner to give effect to legislations, reports and
recommendations for ensuring that the loss oflives due to road accidents
is minimized. The petitioner estimates that 90% of the problem of deaths
due to road accidents is the result of a lack of strict enforcement of
safety rules on_ roads and strict punishment for those who do not obey
rules. The petitioner has relied upon data published in l)ecember 2011
by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its publication
captioned 'Road Accidents in India 201 O' to indicate that the number of
road accidents is increasing every year and that unfortunately more than
half the victims are in the economically active age group of25-65 years.
3. Since the petitioner has no pernonal interest in the matter, the
writ petition filed by him was taken up as a public interest litigation.
4. Initially, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways opposed
the writ petition but as the litigation progressed, the matter was looked at
in a non-adversarial manner and considered as one in public interest.
E
F
G
H
516
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201'1] 13 S.C.R.
5. In view of the non-adversarial stance of the Government of
India, this Court passed an order on 22'd April, 2014 constituting a
Committee on Road Safety under the Ciiamnanship of Justice K. S.
Radhakrishnan, a former judge of this Court.
The Committee was
notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) of
the Government ct idiu "" 30th May, 2014 and orders finalizing the
terms anti co!'ditlons of appointment of the Chairperson and Members
of the Committee were issued on 8th August, 2014.
6. In compliance with the orders of this Court and notwithstanding
bureaucratic delays and without having been provided adequate
infrastructure and staff, the Committee commenced its work in earnest
from I5lh/16'h May, 2014. The Committee has since submitted 12 reports
to this Court but it is not necessary at present to deal with all these reports.
7. On JO<h April, 2015 we recognized the exemplary work being
done by the Committee and expressed the view that its recommendations
need to be seriously discussed and debated. This was in the context of
D
the fact that the number of deaths due to road accidents in the country
was said to be over I 00,000 in a year, which translates to about one
death every three minutes and that the compensation awarded for deaths
and other motor accident claims runs into hundreds of crores of rupees.
E
F
G
H
8. However, it appeared to us that various State Governments
were not responding positively to the recommendations made by the
Committee and accordingly the Secretary of the MoRTH was directed
to call a meeting of his counterparts from all the States and Union
Territories on or before 31" May, 2015 to deliberate on the reports
prepared by the Committee as well as its recommendations, their
implementation and further measures that could be taken.
9. We also noted that despite the lapse of a considerable period
of time, the Government of India was unable to provide adequate facilities
to the Committee even though a letter was sent by the learned Attorney
General for India on 19th December, 2014 to the Revenue Secretary and
the Urban Development Secretary of the Government oflndia. We are
mentioning this fact only to highlight the casualness with which the
Government of India was takingthe directions of this Court, in spite of
the importance of the work being carried out by the Committee and its
non-adverserial stance. We may mention here that as of now, we have
been informed that the Committee has been provided with all necessary
facilities and support by the Government of India.
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[MADAN B. LOKUR. J.]
I 0. In the hearing on 26"' August, 2016 we noted that in 2014 the
numberof persons who had died in road accidents was 139,671 and that
this figure had jumped up in 2015 to 146,133.
11. Since we were informed by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate
who was requested to assist us as Amicus Curiae that the State
Governments were still not cooperating with the Committee, we had no
option but to again direct the Transport Secretaries of all States to attend
a meeting to be convened by the Secretary of the MoRTH on 7'h
September, 2016. We had to, perforce, set the agenda for the meeting,
that is, implementation of the recommendations of the Committee, keeping
in mind the very large number of deaths taking place.
12. On J 9th September, 2016 we noted that in the meeting chaired
by the Secretary of the MoRTH convened on 2"" September, 2016 (instead
of 7"' September, 2016) only two or three Secretaries of the concerned
Transport Ministries of the State Governments had participated and the
517
A
B
c
rest of the State Governments were represented by junior officials and
in some cases even the designation of these junior. officials was not D
mentioned.
13. During this hearing, we sought to impress upon all concerned
that road safety issues should be taken seriously both by the Central
Government as well as by the State Governments. We also noted that
huge amounts running into hundreds of crores of rupees had been
earmarked for road safety and it was also highlighted that a very large
number of deaths had been taking place due to road accidents. We noted
that the insurance companies had spent an amount of Rs. 11,480 crores
by way of compensation for deaths, injuries, third party property damage
and other damage due to road accidents during the financial year 2015-16.
14. On 7"' November, 2016 we again noted that there was one
death almost every three minutes as a result of road accidents.
Unfortunately, the legal heirs of half the victims were not compensated
(perhaps being unaware of their entitlement). We expressed our distress
at this unfortunate situation and had to remind all concerned that we
were not dealing with an adversarial issue but a public interest litigation
for the benefit of the common man particularly for the victims of road
accidents and their legal heirs.
15. On 11th April, 2017 we were informed by the learned Amicus
that the Government of India had woken up to the problems faced due
E
F
G
H
518
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
to road accidents and had prepared a Bill for the amendment of the
Motor Vehicles A.ct, 1988.
16. Thereiifter, the learned Amicus prepared a chart in three
columns: First, relating to the issues that this Court had been dealing
with in this public interest litigation; second the views expressed by the
MoRTH on these issues, and third, the orders prayed for by the learned
Amicus Curiae. A perusal of the chart indicates that fortunately, the
Government oflndia has now begun considering the issues raised in the
right spirit and in a non-adversarial manner and has accepted almost all
the suggestions. Those that form a part of the Bill seeking to amend the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will be considered by Parliament. The tabular
statement is given below:
s.
No.
i.
Issue contained in
note of Amicus
Curiae
Vi cws by Ministry of
Road Transport &
Highways
Orders prayed by
the AC
Road
Safety Ministry
of
Road Order Proposed:
Policy: E~ery State Trausport & Highways
The States I UTs
(Jovernmc)1t
shall
is in agreen1ent with the
which
have
not
i1nple1ncnt
State
suggestion.
formulated
the
Road Safety Policy
Road Safety Policy
formulated
as
a All
die
States/UTs may be directed to
result
of
the
except Assam, Dellli,
formulate
the
intervention of the
Nagaland.
Tripura,
policy on priority
Comtnittee on Road
Lakshadweep,
Dadra basis. latest by 31 si
Safety.
The
said
Nagar
Haveli
aud December
2017.
Policy
1nay
be I Andaman & Nicobar The
staten1ent
notified
in
the 1 h:ivc
already 1nade
by
the
gazette and brought
formulated their Road Goven1ment
of
Safety Policy.
into existence w.e.f.
l"
September,
2017. if not already
done so.
India 1nay kindly
l11e States I UTs which be taken on record
and ordered.
have not formulated the
Road
Safety
Policy.
have been requested to
formulate the policy on
priority basis.
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
519
ii
iii.
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
Slare
Road
Safety Ministiy
of
Road Onler proposed: All
Omncil:
All
State Transport & Highway.; is States I urs except
Glvernment
(except in agreerrent with the Damm & Diu, Dadra
Nlgaland) have cmstituted suggestiott All States I Nagar
Haveli
and
State Road Satay Council Ufs except Damm & Atxlamm & Nicobar
A
as required under Section Diu, O.dra Nagar Haveli have
already
B
215 of tl1e Mater Vdticles and Andamm & Ni:chrr constituted State Road
Ac~ 1988 and. dirocted by have already cmstituted Safety Councils. The
the Comnittee. The said State
Road
Safety at hers may be directed
Cootx:il
trust
undertake Councils.
to corlititute tm sarne
pericx:lC n1eetings to review
the
actions
and
in"Planentation
of road
safety lav.s and submit
suitable reports
to
the
oot'l'etent Jegishture and
the Committee m Road
Safety.
Lead Agency: Eadt State
Glvernment
nny
be
directed to ~tablish a Lead
Agency as raiuired by tlie
Committee on Road Safety
headed by a senior officer
and with aci:quate slaff to
be
solely dedicated to
rratters
rehting
to
ticmsing issuing of driving
licmces, an:l registration of
vehicles, rood safety, and
fuatures
of
vehicles,
l"nution and otl1er allied
ITBtters.
Ministiy
of
Road
TraIBpOrt & Highways is
1n agreenllnt with the
suggestion
Ministiy
hdd review
m:eting with the States to
review
tre
inplen'l!ntation of th!
d~ections
of
the
Comnittee
oo
Road
Safety
from 21'
to
3o''June,
2017.
The
States
I
Ufs
wa:e
requested to
establish
lead Agency and depute
addjuate, dedicated and
professional I technical
:.taff.
Fe\\'
States
viz.
as
per
the
rocou1nerxiations
of
C
the
Comnittee
on
Road Safety.
The
Statement nnde by the
Govemm:nt of India
nny kindly be taken
on rocord and ordered.
Onler
proposed:
The States I UTs that
have not established
Lead
Agetx:y,
as
definal atxl required
by the Committee on
Road
Safety
and
depute
d<rlicated
profess ion al
aci:quate,
and
I
techniral staff tray be
directed to do so by
31" Dxember 2017 as
per the Slandards set
by tl>e Conrnittee on
Road
Safety.
The
D
E
F
statanent trade by the
Chhattis!l'fh, Drumn & Govemrrent of India
Diu, Haryana, Jharkhatxl, may kindly be taken
JanlITll
&
Ka<ilunir,
on ra:ord and crdered
Nagaland,
Raj8'1han,
G
Tani! Nadu rave ab-mdy
established
the
Lead
Agoncy.
•y
t.
520
A
iv
B
c
D
E
v
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
' Road Safety Fund:
. Pursuart
to
reconnrendatioll'l
of the Ccrnnittee
on Rood Saftty all
the
States
have
oomneooed
er
00111lleted actim to
set up
a Road
Safuty Fund wth
aSfillred
flow
of
rrooey as des ired
by fui Committee.
H:iwever, in such
States \\h:re it res
oot ccrne into place
it mll'lt come into
effect
w.e.f.
1•
Septcn::ber 201 7.
Ministty
of
Road
Trall'lpcrt & Highway.s
is in agreanent with tbe
suggestion
Some of the States viz.
Bihar,
Chhittisg;irh,
Hirnachal
Pradesh,
Jharkhand,
Kerab,
MadhY<t
Praresh,
Pududierry, Rajasthm,
Uttar
Pradesh
have
establisred
dalicated
fund as per directioll'l
of Conrnittee on Road
Safety.
During
the
review
meeting beld by tbe
Ministty, tbe rermining
States I Ufs rove been
requested to create tbe
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
Order Prqiosed:
The States /UTs
that
rove
not
cmstituted
tbe
Road Safety Finl
tray be directed to
establish the same
as soon as poSS!ble
an1 not later than
March, 2018 an1
report
to
tbe
Comnittee
on
Road Safuty. The
statemait trade by
the Government of
ln:lia rmy kin:lly
be takai on record
an1 erd:red.
Rood Safcty Fund as
per the directims oftbe
Ccmnittee m Road
Safety.
-.. -----+--~-----+ ---·-··--··-----t
Road
Safety Ministty
of
Road Onler Prqiosed:
Action Han: State Trarnpcrt & Highway.s The States I UTs
Cbvennnents tray is in agreement with tbe tray be directed to
be
directed
to suggestion
prei:are the amual
fi:onulate
and During
the
review tar!}'t rused Action
notify "Road Safety meetings held by tre Plan
to
raluce
Action Plan" with Ministty, the States I accidert & fatality
an anrrual targii fer UTs
rove
been rate in μirsuanee of
reducing
rood requested to prerme the directicns
of
acx:1der< ";~ 0 ffect arnrn.l
target
based Conrnittee
on
frcrn a date rnx Action Plan to raluce Road Sarety an1
later
than
1" accident & fatality rate the repcrt to the
Septerrber 201 7.
in
pursuance
of Committee.
directioll'l
of
Comnittee on Road
Safetv.
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
521
vii
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
District
Road
Safety Ministry
of Road Order proposed: State
Committee:
All
State
Tran~-port
& Govemnients n1ay be
Govenunents
tnay
be
Highwa1s
is
in directed to constitute
directed
to
constitute agreement with the District
Road
Safety
District
Road
Safety suggestion.
Committee 1-,,aded by
Canmittee headed by the
tl1e
Collector of tl1e
Collector of the District
District
as
soon
as
which will fix target' for
pa;sible
lay
down
reduction in accidents and
fatality dependent upon
peculiar
facts
of the
District As suggested in
the \vritten Note, District
Road Safety Committee
could
include
Superintendent of Police,
Health Officers,
PWD
Engineers, repr~entati\es
of NHAJ and RTO of tl1e
District
respcmsibilities of said
corrnnittees.
including
regular
and
periodic
n1eeting and report to the
Committee
on
Road
Saft1y.
The statemm
made
by
the
Govemtnent of indi a
may kindly be taken on
reccrd and ordered.
Engineering
The Ministry is in Order
proposed:
Impro\'ement:
The agreement \vith the Prctocol
for
Aniicus Curia? submits ·suggestion. l-Towever. Identification
and
that one of the nnin the protocol has to be Rectification of Black
reasons for accidents is reviewed and updated Spots
prepared
by
poor quality of roads,
fro1n time to tin1e
MoRTI-1 at the instance
ilnproper
design, l:ased
on
the of Cormnittee on Road
inadequate
curve, experience ~ined.
Safety lllaY be directed
inadequate
depth
and
to be in1Jlemented by all
ina:iequate angle which
~-·
concerned
including
need to be maintained at
NHAJ
and
•State
crocial junctions. At the
GO"\.en1rnents
in
inS:an<.-e
of
the
consultation with the
Con1n1ittee
on
Road
C'..onnnittee
on
Road
Safety. the MoRTH has
Safety.
set
up
rrntocol
for
identification
and
lt may be clarified that
rectification
of
black
spots. TI1e said protocol
for rectifying black SjX)ts
for better road s:ifety is
annexOO herewith as
the said protocol would
be reviewed and updated
by
MoRTH
armual ly
based on the experience
giined.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
522
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
I
I
I
I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Annexure 'B' pages (28
to 29). This Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to
direct that the :san-.e be
enforced into i1runediatc
effect by the NHAl, the
Ministry
of
Road
Transron & High""y.; of
Government of India as
well
"'
the
PWD
Dqiantrents of all State I'
Govennnerts
as
\vell
their contractors. It is ii
important that the saire is
also
enforced
in
all
express\vays
being
1
constructed on PPP 1ncxC.
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
The statement made by
the Government of India
may kindly be taken on
I reead and crdered.
I
I
Traffic
Calming I Ministry
i\tleasures: This Hon'ble
Trrut'ip()rt
of Road Order proposed: This
& Hon'ble
Court
may
Court 1my further direct
HighW<ly.;
is
the State Govem111ents to I agree1nent \.\-ith
adopt Traffic Ca!mmg suggesnoo.
Me.asures
at
accident I
prone m;cas. jrn1ctirns of
lower hierarchy roads and~
other wlnemblc spcts I
~t~e scl\ools, hospitals.
1
in
1
. direct
that
the
State
the Governments
should
a<hpt Traffic Calming
I
M~ures at
accklcrt
prore area<>, junctions of
I
lower hierarchy roads
with higher hierarchy
road;
and
other
I
vulrerable
spcts
like
schools, lxi;pitals etc.,
) aOO subrnit district wise
I
I
C001Jliancc repocts to
the Conmittce on Road
I
,
I Safety,
as
per
the
1
directions
of
the
; Committee on periodic
I
I ~
Theby ;tatm':
'
I Govem1nent of India
l
[
lllaY kindly be takt.'tl on
L-.
__ _
_ _j_ ____ ~
i' rec_oc_d_and_cr_dered_. __
DR. S. RA.TASEEKARAN (II) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
523
ix
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Roods Safety Audits: ln-}rinciple,
the
This Hon'blc OJurt llllY Ministry
JS
in
direct State Governirenls agreerrenl with the
to cany 01.t rood safety suggestioo. Ho'.\ever,
audit<
during
design, there is a deficiency
eonstructioo
and cf qualifioo audilcrs
operation of roo:Is and in
road
safely
also in respect of existing eqiineering in die
roods within a srccificd oomby. Effcrts arc
litre fram:. This audit l:cing mide by the
m.JSt be carried out by Gi"'mrrent to build
auditors accredited by cajllCity, by w.iy of
Nliional
Road
Safety <rJymizirg
Audit
Board.
This \\OlkshJps on mad
Nliional
Road
Safely safely
eqiineering.
Audit Boord ITT.Et oonsist road
safety
audit
of Senicr Officers of the certification oourses
NHAI,
MoRTil,
of etc.
It \\Ollld take
rCSJ:l!Cli"'
Stale son10 time to build up
Govemm:its as '.\ell as caplcity in the field
Rood Safety fapern; ooo of road safety audit.
arc tmired Rood Safely Therefurc, Stales nny
Audilcrs. II is resμ:ctfully 1:e μmiitted to set
submitted that if roads their cmn targels fer
wcre propcrly corntructed . CCJYt>leting the mad
and m1irtained in this safety audits, as pcr
counby, as is cbne in the guidelines issuoo
llllny ovcrsea; ccxmtries, by the Ministry from
rood aecidenls \\Ollld be tiire to time.
much less.
'M th rei;ntl to the
rcconm:ndation
of
accrWitalion
by
N!tiooal Road Safety
Audit Board, it is
staled that a pmpa;al
to create a National
Rood Safely Board
Ins bren iocoq=ted
in the Motor Vehicle
(Atrendm:nt)
Bill,
'.lll7. The bill has
teen Jn=! by Lok
Sabha The 1>m]DSCd
Boan! will deal with
all a~x:ct' of the road
safely.
Order p~sed: This
Hon'ble (hurt imy be
pleased to direct the
Central Government to:
(i)
Chn:!uct audit of
2 nllSI at'Cident prone
stretcfles
of
highw.iys/expressw.iys
in each State as a pilot
programme, and present
stmtegies for redicing
lhe a::cidenls;
(ii)
build
capacity
arxl train at least 150
nne auditors within the
pcriod of next crie iear;
The
State
Givemm:nts!Ufs llllY
be directed to train at
least 25 such auditors
within lhe I"rioo of next
on: year, and thereafter
conduct audits.
The statement mire by
the Govemm:nt of India
1my kindly be taken on
reccrd and crdered
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
524
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
x
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Engineering Design of
NC\v Roads: It rnay be
directed by this Hon'ble
C'..ourt
that
no
ne\v
row.Vproject
costing
nvre than R~. 10 ('roru;
should
he
undertaken
unless the
desibrt1
is
Judited and the audit
recurnn1endation
are
;n1plemenlied
to
lhe
satisfactiuI!l
of
the
aforen"l!ntioned National
Road
Safety
Audit
Board.
The; road projects costing Rs.
10.00 crore er more may be
of different types like resurfacing
of the
rood.
reconstru:tion of bridges f
culverts,
COfl\truction
of
retaining walls fOr protection
of roack etc_ Such projects
do not require the rood
safety
audit.
Therefore,
sp:cifying only cost c1itcria
for carrying out roa::I safety
audits is not appropriate.
It is proposed that the rwd
safety audit including the
desi g)1 stage audit should be
I carried out for al I rood
capacity
oogrnentation
[2017] 13 S.C.R.
Order proposed: It
is prayed that this
Hon 'ble Court may
be pleased to dire.1
the r00<l safety audit
including the design
stage audit should be
canied "OUt for all
road
capacity
aug:rrentalion
projects of 5 km or
1nore.
f----+~~~~~--~~-+"'=-nrq~·~ec~1~s~o~f~5~k7n~1o~r~17n~or~e~.~-l-~~~~~~~-1
xi
Working
Gmup
on The report of the Wcrki11g Order
proposed:
Engineering:
it
is
Group
on
Engineering
. prayed that this Hon"ble
(Roads) contai11s a detailed
I Court n1ay pass an urdt.'f background discus.sion. l11e
directing
that
reconunendations
and
recun1111endatiuns of the suggested
policies
are
\Vorking
Group
on cootained in Para 4 of the
'1 Enginee1in~ as directed \Vorking
Group
Report.
by tl1is Hon 'ble Court Many
of
these
(nra.rkcd as Anncxure reconirnendations are in the
"(."' pag<S (30 to 38))
nature of general wmments.
re
in1plen1ented
In
view of the
above,
j thrthwith as dire<.icd by appropriate
the Hon 'hie· C..ourt.
reconm1endations based on
I-~-·
Working
Group
Report
which can be JllSSed by
I I Ion 'hie Supren1e Court as
i directions are brought out as
belo\v:
..
Higl1\vdys and urlnn
road design stan.iards <111d
guidelines
will
be
111ade
consistent with the satety
reguiren1ents and in u.u1e
\vith the international be;t
practices on a continuous
i OO.Sis at reb'l.llar intervdls.
1_ .
This Hon 'ble Court
niay
issue
the
following directions
as set out as below:
l.
Highways
and
urban road design
standards
and
i,'llidelines will be
niade
consistent
with
the
safety
require111ents and in
tune
\Vith
the
intenlational
best
practices
on
a
continuous basis at
regular intervals.
2.
Conduct
Road
safety
audits
at
different stages of
construction
and
operation.
3.
All
road
improvement
project'\
including
resurfacing
works
should
have
provision of sib'llS &
1narkings as 'per 'The
requirenient">.
DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (I!) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
525
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
Road safety audit<;
4. Adequate traffic
at different stages should cahning
111casurcs
be carried out depending : should
be
taken,
on the size I type of the : wherever ncoossaiy,
project for all the road · to enhance safety of
developn1ent projects.
. vulnerable
road
All
road , users.
i1nprovement
projt.-"Cts :: 5. Rcco1nn1cndations
including
resurfacing of
Road
Safety
works
should
have Audits
should
be
provision
of signs
& in1plcirented, before
nnrkings
as
per
the further
work
is
requiren1ents.
undertaken on the
A&quatc
traffic road concerned.
: cahning measures should 6.
Standard Road
be
taken,
wherever accident
recording
necessary.
to
enhance & reporting formats
safety of vulnerable road should be evolved
u5ers.
1 considering
all
Existing stretches aspects of feasibility
of National J-ligln.\'ays &
and
nnnpower
State
Highways
not resources
and
be
. covered in developn1ent published
as
i projects on modes like standard dccun1t.'11t'l
· BOT/EPC
should
be , for adoption by all
subjected to Road Safety authorities at Central
; Audits in phased n1anner and State levels.
· through
a tin1c bound 7.
Speciali7Cd
progranl11'le.
accident
Reco1n1nendations · investigation centres
of Road Safety Audits shall be established
should he implen1ented to
study
a
few
preferably within 2 years
selected
accidents
of sul:nnission of audit using
accident
reports.
reronstruction
Standard
Road : techniques etc., and
acci&nt
recording
&
the details to be
reporting fonnats should preserved- in a data
; be evolved considering all base.
: ac;pects of feasibility and ; 8.
lnstitutionali7.Cd
nnnpowcr resources and systern of database
he published as standard storage
and
! documents for adoption by managerrent should
all authorities at Central , be
<level oped
for
and State levels.
road accident data.
Specialized
. A
suitable
web
acci&nt
i1westigation based
electronic
centres shall be e;tablished road accident data
to study a few selected ; collection!
acci&nts using accident
~
, recon.'itruction techni ues
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
526
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
i etc., and tl1e retails to be
ireserved in a data ba<ie.
h1~titutimali2ed
system of databa.<ie staage and
nnnagenDJt
should
be
developed for rood accident
data A suitable ~b ba'led
electronic road accident data
: oollcction/conlJilatim S)Stem
I
shall
re
de\Clcped
fer
ooun1Iyl'1de impleirentatim.
I -
Centre of excellence
for rood safe! y Research &
I Accident analyses shculd be
, developed
in
academic
institutions across tl1e ccuntty.
Estabfo;hing synergy
retwectl various stake holders
(road authorities, acadenlia,
enforeCJrent authcrities, reuth
a.ithoritics etc) in road safety
· at central/ state level~ is being
slrived through National Road
Safety Council and State Road
, Safety Cow:cils.