# S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 1189
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-10-07
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-rajaseekaran-v-union-of-india-and-ors-38017
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Matter pertains to issuance of directions relating to road safety,
safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, wearing of helmets,
wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED
white lights to help in reduction of road accidents and fatalities.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Road safety and pedestrian
safety - Alarming increase in road accidents and fatalities, and
pedestrian fatalities - Issuance of directions relating to safety
of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, making pedestrian
crossings safe, wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving and
unsafe overtaking, and land discipline, and use of dazzling
LED white lights, unauthorized sale and misuse of red blue
strobe lights and hooters which would help in reduction of
road accidents and fatalities:
Held: As regards safety of pedestrians, NHAI to start audit of existing
footpaths, to identify the deficiencies in the existing footpaths,
including the width, height, surface of the said footpaths, decide
the remedial measures, including repair and road engineering
improvement of the facilities, and fix a timeline for addressing
the deficiencies - Existing pedestrian crossings to be carefully
audited to ensure that they are compliant with the IRC Guidelines
to the extent possible - Pedestrian subways and foot overbridges
(FOBs) are often unsafe, poorly maintained, or inaccessible - Thus,
direction for audit of existing pedestrian crossings-requirement of
traffic calming measures as per IRC:35- 2015 and IRC:67-2012;
signage to indicate the existence of pedestrian crossing, with
high-visibility zebra markings, illumination of pedestrian crossings
during night-time, road dividers to be placed in a manner to prevent
* Author
312
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
pedestrians from crossing the road at any other place, condition
and safety of pedestrian subways and FOBs, with upgradation
measures including improved LED lighting, CCTV surveillance
linked to command centres, clearly demarcated entry and exit
points, panic buttons connected to local police stations - In school
zones and other vulnerable corridors, authorities to systematically
identify high-risk stretches using accident data, and implement
context specific measures - raised crossings, zebra markings,
traffic calming features, and deployment of trained crossing
guards - Road owning agencies in the 50 cities in the Report on
Road Accidents, 2023 and the NHAI to draw up an action plan and
start phase-wise survey to assess the requirement of additional
pedestrian crossing facilities - First priority be given to the road
crossing at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden
on the Mathura Road - State transport departments, municipal
authorities, NHAI, and traffic police to strengthen implementation
and monitoring of pedestrian safety measures - Simple and
effective grievance redressal mechanism put in place by the PWD
Department, Municipal Authorities and NHAI so that complaints
pertaining to lack of maintenance of footpaths and the requirement
of a pedestrian crossing, are addressed - State Governments/
Municipal Authorities/NHAI to create an online grievance redressal
mechanism - As regards wearing helmets, issuance of direction
to all the State Governments, UTs and the NHAI to strictly
implement the provisions of law relating to wearing helmets by
two-wheeler drivers and passengers using two wheelers - Strict
enforcement of these rules to be ensured through e-enforcement
mechanism, cameras installed at various places - As regards
unlawful and wrongful lane driving, State transport departments,
traffic police authorities, and urban local bodies to take measures
to enforce lane discipline by addressing unlawful or wrong-lane
driving, including the use of automated cameras, graduated fines,
coloured and textured lane markings for bus and cycle lanes,
dynamic lighting, rumble strips, and tyre killers at critical conflict
points - Development and publication of real-time

## Text

_Characters 0–39,737 of 62,424. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39737 for what follows._

[2025] 10 S.C.R. 311 : 2025 INSC 1189
S. Rajaseekaran
v.
Union of India and Ors.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012)
07 October 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to issuance of directions relating to road safety,
safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, wearing of helmets,
wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking, use of dazzling LED
white lights to help in reduction of road accidents and fatalities.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Road safety and pedestrian
safety - Alarming increase in road accidents and fatalities, and
pedestrian fatalities - Issuance of directions relating to safety
of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, making pedestrian
crossings safe, wearing of helmets, wrong lane driving and
unsafe overtaking, and land discipline, and use of dazzling
LED white lights, unauthorized sale and misuse of red blue
strobe lights and hooters which would help in reduction of
road accidents and fatalities:
Held: As regards safety of pedestrians, NHAI to start audit of existing
footpaths, to identify the deficiencies in the existing footpaths,
including the width, height, surface of the said footpaths, decide
the remedial measures, including repair and road engineering
improvement of the facilities, and fix a timeline for addressing
the deficiencies - Existing pedestrian crossings to be carefully
audited to ensure that they are compliant with the IRC Guidelines
to the extent possible - Pedestrian subways and foot overbridges
(FOBs) are often unsafe, poorly maintained, or inaccessible - Thus,
direction for audit of existing pedestrian crossings-requirement of
traffic calming measures as per IRC:35- 2015 and IRC:67-2012;
signage to indicate the existence of pedestrian crossing, with
high-visibility zebra markings, illumination of pedestrian crossings
during night-time, road dividers to be placed in a manner to prevent
* Author
312
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
pedestrians from crossing the road at any other place, condition
and safety of pedestrian subways and FOBs, with upgradation
measures including improved LED lighting, CCTV surveillance
linked to command centres, clearly demarcated entry and exit
points, panic buttons connected to local police stations - In school
zones and other vulnerable corridors, authorities to systematically
identify high-risk stretches using accident data, and implement
context specific measures - raised crossings, zebra markings,
traffic calming features, and deployment of trained crossing
guards - Road owning agencies in the 50 cities in the Report on
Road Accidents, 2023 and the NHAI to draw up an action plan and
start phase-wise survey to assess the requirement of additional
pedestrian crossing facilities - First priority be given to the road
crossing at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden
on the Mathura Road - State transport departments, municipal
authorities, NHAI, and traffic police to strengthen implementation
and monitoring of pedestrian safety measures - Simple and
effective grievance redressal mechanism put in place by the PWD
Department, Municipal Authorities and NHAI so that complaints
pertaining to lack of maintenance of footpaths and the requirement
of a pedestrian crossing, are addressed - State Governments/
Municipal Authorities/NHAI to create an online grievance redressal
mechanism - As regards wearing helmets, issuance of direction
to all the State Governments, UTs and the NHAI to strictly
implement the provisions of law relating to wearing helmets by
two-wheeler drivers and passengers using two wheelers - Strict
enforcement of these rules to be ensured through e-enforcement
mechanism, cameras installed at various places - As regards
unlawful and wrongful lane driving, State transport departments,
traffic police authorities, and urban local bodies to take measures
to enforce lane discipline by addressing unlawful or wrong-lane
driving, including the use of automated cameras, graduated fines,
coloured and textured lane markings for bus and cycle lanes,
dynamic lighting, rumble strips, and tyre killers at critical conflict
points - Development and publication of real-time dashboards on
lane violations be explored to build public awareness, enhance
compliance, and improve overall road safety - As regards white
LED dazzling lights, red-blue strobe lights and unauthorised
hooters, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, State Transport
Departments, and traffic police authorities to prescribe maximum
permissible luminance and beam angles for vehicle headlights
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
313
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
and ensure compliance through checks during PUC testing and
vehicle fitness certification, while conducting targeted drives to
penalize non-compliant or modified headlights - Complete ban on
unauthorized red-blue strobe flashing lights and illegal hooters to
be enforced through seizure, market crackdowns, and penalties,
and, nationwide public awareness campaigns to be conducted to
sensitize drivers and pedestrians about the hazards posed - States
and UTs to formulate and notify Rules u/s.138(1A) of the MV Act for
regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled
vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways -
States and UTs to formulate and notify Rules u/s.210-D of the
MV Act for design, construction and maintenance of standards for
roads other than national highways - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
[Paras 35-35.17]
Case Law Cited
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985] Supp. 2
SCR 51 : (1985) 3 SCC 545; Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v.
Nawab Khan Gulab Khan [1996] Supp. 7 SCR 548 : (1997) 11
SCC 121; Sudhir Madan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [2007]
7 SCR 1 : (2009) 17 SCC 332; MC Mehta v. Union of India [2019]
11 SCR 1053 : (2019) 10 SCC 614 - referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Road Regulations 1989; Penal Code, 1860;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Central Motor Vehicles (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2020.
List of Keywords
Road safety; Safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths;
Wearing of helmets; Wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking;
Use of dazzling LED white lights; Reduction of road accidents
and fatalities; Pedestrian fatalities; Guidelines for Pedestrian
Safety [Second Revision] June, 2022 IRC 103-2022; Indian Roads
Congress Guidelines; MOHUA Harmonised Guidelines (2021);
Report on Road Accidents, 2023; Road crossing at the Delhi High
Court and the National Zoological Garden on the Mathura Road;
District Road Safety Committees; Ministry of Road Transport &
Highways; State Transport Departments; Traffic police authorities;
National highways.
314
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Krishna Kumar, Vinodh Kanna B.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae
Vikramjit Bannerjee, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.Gs., Sharan Dev
Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G., Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G., Ms. Shirin
Khajuria, Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Advs., Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Mrs. Madhulika Upadhyay Sharath Nambiar, Sabrish
Subramanium, Debojit Borkakati, Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Sudarshan
Lamba, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sharath Nambiar, B.K. Satija, T.S.
Sabarish, Debojit Borkakati, Viresh B. Saharya, Ms. Prerna Mehta,
Kuriakose Varghese, V. Shyamohan, Sanjay Jain, Kishan hand
Jain, Sachin Kumar Dubey, Haraprasad Sahu, Pranaya Kumar
Mohapatra, Satyajeet Kumar, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ms. Ankita M
Bhardwaj, Ms. Baani Khanna, Robin Singh, Kapil Balwani, Santosh
Kumar - I, Pradeep Misra, Shantanu Sagar, Anil Kumar, Mrs.
Divya Mishra, Shaurya Vardhan Singh, Ms. Niharika Rai, Ashish K
Singh, Sunny Choudhary, Nitin Lonkar, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Shrirang B. Varma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Ms. Neha Singh, V. N. Raghupathy, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu
K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Mrs. Devika A.I., Guntur Pramod
Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali,
M. P. Vinod, Kishan Chand Jain, Rajesh Kumar, Ashwini Kumar,
Sidhant Sahay, E. C. Agrawala, Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Neeraj
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Harish
Pandey, Shashwat Parihar, Kanu Agarwal, Varun Chugh, Bhuvan
Kapur, Vinayak Sharma, Piyush Beriwal, Rajesh Singh Chauhan,
Apoorv Kurup, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Krishna Kant Dubey,
Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Sameer Abhyankar,
Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Neeraj Shekhar, Rajesh Maurya,
Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Ms. Tulika Mukherjee,
Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Sharanya
Sinha, Ms. Veera Mahuli, Ms. Ritika Rao, Vivek Kishore, Subhasish
Mohanty, Mrs. Ranjita Sahu, Manaj Sarkar, Ms. Swati Tiwari, Rajan
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
315
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
Narain, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla
Chang, Prang Newmai, Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Anando Mukherjee,
Shwetank Singh, Ms. Pooja Singh, Aravindh S., Aman Gautam,
Ms. Anika Bansal, Ravi Raghunath, Manan Daga, M/s. Arputham
Aruna And Co, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Sunita Sharma,
Ishaan Sharma, Annirudh Sharma Ii, Jagdish Chandra Solanki,
Sabarish Subramanian, Sumit Gupta, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, Akshay
Tiwari, Ms. Tanya Shrotriya, Shivang Goel, Ms. Juhi Bhargava,
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Kunal Mimani,
Parag Chaturvedi, D. K. Devesh, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan
Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Satyalipsu
Ray, Prashant Bhagwati, Ms. Priyal Sheth, Raghvendra Kumar,
Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Saurabh Pandey, Pukhrambam
Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande,
Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Amit Kumar, Abhishek Verma, Ms. Devina
Sehgal, Yatharth Kansal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
J.B. Pardiwala & K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
1.
Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a leading orthopaedic surgeon and a
public-spirited citizen of this country has invoked the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for
the following reliefs in public interest:
"a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent NO.5 to
be directly responsible for this 'national emergency' and to
form and head an apex body with all such powers so that
all stake holders directly or indirectly responsible for the
creation of safer roads, licensing of drivers and vehicles,
enforcement of road safety, treatment of accident victims
and provision of due compensation to the victim to be
brought under one umbrella.
b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No. 5
to constitute a core road group for implementation of the
316
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
following by allocating fixed time bound responsibilities on
Respondent Nos 1 to 4 and 6 to 7:
- various recommendations as contained in the Reports of
the 4 Working Groups of the Respondent No.1 pertaining
to Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency
Care;
- the National Road Safety Policy;
- the measures suggested by the erstwhile Hon'ble
Chairman of the Law Commission and
- the suggestions of the Petitioner as contained in
paragraph 15 above.
c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.5 to
constitute a monitoring group to monitor the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 7 in the implementation of each of
the above contained in paragraph (b) above;
d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos 1 to
7 to file bi-annual reports with affidavits before this Hon'ble
Court regarding the status of the implementation by them;
e) To issue appropriate directions to the Insurance
Regulatory and Development Authority, the Respondent
No. 7 to suitably modify the rules and regulations of
compensation and disbursement of funds so that the
accident victim is not left wanting of appropriate medical
care on an emergency basis;
f) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ or directions to the Respondent No. 5 so that the
Government becomes liable in all accidents where a
negligence of omission or commission by any of the
Governmental organizations can be pointed as the cause
of the accident;
g) To issue necessary orders to Respondent No.1 to
urgently include biometrics in licensing and enforce stricter
laws to prevent errant drivers;
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
317
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
h) To recommend modification of laws so that fatal
accidents due to drunken driving or over-speeding will
attract imprisonment and not merely a fine;
i) To direct the Respondent No.1 to seek amendment of
the Motor Vehicle Act to include accidents where a single
vehicle is involved due to defective road safety measures
on the part of Government;
j) Such further reliefs that this Honorable Court may deem
fit and proper to protect and save the plight of "not at fault
road traffic accident victim".
2.
The case put up by the petitioner in public interest is that he is
extremely anguished and distressed by the loss of life and limb
caused by ever increasing number of road accidents in the country
and utter callous and casual attitude of the States towards such
accidents despite there being various statutory enactments and
plethora of judgments/orders delivered by this Court and various
High Courts across the country. According to the petitioner the
quantum of loss of lives and limbs are akin to that which occur in
major national genocides.
3.
This petition was filed way back in the year 2012. According to the
petitioner the United Nations had declared the decade of 2011-2020
as the decade of action on road safety. According to him it is high
time that the Government of India awakens to the magnitude of
the crisis and takes concrete steps which go beyond mere policies,
papers and recommendations on road safety.
4.
According to the petitioner 90% (ninety per cent) of the problem is
on account of lack of strict enforcement of the safety rules on roads
and strict punishment for the drivers who do not obey the road rules.
Any traffic violation is a potential accident and every accident is a
potential road accident death.
5.
It has been brought to our notice that the Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways [MoRTH] in its December 2011 publication captioned
"Road Accidents in India 2010" has stated as follows:
"Road accidents are a human tragedy. They involve high
human suffering and monetary costs in terms of untimely
deaths, injuries and loss of potential income. Although we
have undertaken many initiatives and are implementing
318
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
various road safety improvement programmes, the overall
situation as revealed by data is far from satisfactory ...
The Government alone cannot tackle road safety problems.
There is a need for active involvement of all stakes holders
to promote policy reform and implementation of road safety
measures. Addressing road safety in a comprehensive
manner underscores the need to involve multiple agencies/
sectors like health, transport and police. The data and
analysis on road accidents presented in the document
is expected to create awareness and assist in informed
decision making on road safety."
6.
By this order today, we propose to issue directions on five important
aspects in the hope that compliance of said directions would help
in reduction of road accidents and fatalities. These directions relate
to (i) safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths, (ii) making
pedestrian crossings safe (iii) wearing of helmets (iv) Wrong lane
driving and unsafe overtaking, and (v) Use of dazzling LED white
lights, unauthorized sale and misuse of red-blue strobe lights and
hooters. This Court has taken up these five issues in light of recent
official figures released by the Government of India which show that
(i) more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in the
year 2023, (ii) more than 54,000 riders/ passengers of two wheelers
had died due to non-wearing of helmets. We shall keep monitoring
the compliance of the directions that we propose to issue by way
of this order.
ROAD ACCIDENTS IN INDIA 2023
7.
The publication "Road Accidents in India 2023" by the Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways [MoRTH] indicates that there have
been 1,72,890 deaths in road accidents in India in the year 2023,
out of which 35,221 are pedestrian deaths, which is an increase of
7.30% from the year 2022. Thus, 20.40% of deaths on Indian roads
were of pedestrians.
8.
The applicant Mr. Kishan Chand Jain in his submissions has pointed
out the alarming increase in pedestrian fatalities as a percentage of
total road accident deaths in India over the past eight years (20162023) which highlights a growing crisis that demands immediate
attention. Pedestrians, being the most vulnerable road users, are
increasingly at risk. The data of the past eight years is as follows:
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
319
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
% Share of Pedestrian Killed in Total Road Accident
for the years 2016 to 2023
Year
Total number
of Persons
killed in road
accidents
Total number
of Pedestrian
Killed in road
accidents
% share of
Pedestrian
killed in
total road
accident
2016
1,50,785
15,746
10.44%
2017
1,47,913
20,457
13.83%
2018
1,51,417
22,656
14.96%
2019
1,51,113
25,858
17.11%
2020
1,31,714
23,483
17.83%
2021
1,53,972
29,124
18.9%
2022
1,68,491
32,825
19.5%
2023
1,72,890
35,221
20.4%
9.
The Road Accidents in India Report 2023 highlights the dangers
pedestrians face daily from all kinds of vehicles. The breakdown of
pedestrian fatalities by the type of impacting vehicles during 2023
as per Table 4.5 of the 2023 Report is as follows:
SL.
NO.
Name of Impacting
Vehicles
Pedestrians
Killed
%
1
Bicycles
54
0.15%
2
Two-Wheelers
9951
28.26%
3
Auto Rickshaws
1377
3.91%
4
Cars, Taxis Vans &
LMV
8724
24.78%
5
Trucks/Lorries
5361
15.23%
6
Buses
2124
6.03%
320
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7
Other NonMotorized Vehiclesrickshaw etc.
337
0.96%
8
Others
7275
20.67%
9
Total
35,203
100%
10. The applicant has also drawn our attention to other key features
relating to pedestrian deaths, as reflected in the 2023 Report, which
are as follows:
"i)
A gender-wise comparison of pedestrian fatalities in 2023
reveals that 27,847 males (79.1%) and 7,374 females
(20.9%) lost their lives in road accidents (Annexure 33
of the Report).
ii)
Chart 4.11 of the Report highlights that 14,761 males
(41.9%) and 3,222 females (9.1%) were killed in the young
age group of 18-45 years, indicating the severe impact on
the most productive segment of the population.
iii)
Annexure 13B of the Report further shows that pedestrian
fatalities on National Highways were significant: 8,805
deaths occurred on NHs under NHAI, 1,986 deaths on
NHs under State PWDs, and 389 deaths on NHs under
other departments, bringing the total number of pedestrian
deaths on National Highways to 11,180."
11. Therefore, it is of urgent necessity that the authorities ensure that
pedestrians in our country are able to walk safely on our streets
and more importantly are able to cross the roads safely. The deaths
of pedestrians may be attributed to lack of sufficient pedestrian
infrastructure, namely footpaths which force the pedestrians to walk
on the streets, which is unsafe as they run the risk of being hit and/
or run over by vehicles. Furthermore, there is a dire need to ensure
that the pedestrian crossings, whether at traffic intersections or
otherwise on roads, are safe so that pedestrians are not run over
by vehicles while crossing the roads.
12. Footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure are frequently unlawfully
encroached upon and misused, forcing pedestrians onto carriageways
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
321
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
and exposing them to grave risks. Sections 201 and 210B of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ["MV Act"] empower authorities to prohibit
and penalise vehicular use of footpaths, pedestrian zones, illegal
parking, vending, and other forms of encroachment. In practice,
however, footpaths are often converted into carriageways, occupied
by vendors or construction activity, and enforcement is inadequate
and inconsistent.
13. Universal accessibility features are also often missing, excluding
vulnerable users and increasing their exposure to danger. Many
footpaths and crossings lack ramps, tactile pavers, and handrails.
New facilities frequently fail to comply with national accessibility
standards, and poor coordination between implementing agencies
delays retrofitting. As a result, persons with disabilities, senior citizens,
and other vulnerable groups face significant mobility barriers. The
integration of pedestrian infrastructure with public transport nodes
remains similarly deficient. Bus terminals, metro stations, and
railway stations frequently lack safe access and dispersal facilities.
Standards prescribed under IRC:103-2012 and IRC:110-2017 are
not consistently applied, resulting in pedestrian spillover onto busy
carriageways and unsafe walking conditions around major transit
hubs.
14. Pedestrian crossings too suffer from serious deficiencies. Rule 11
of the Road Regulations 1989 gives pedestrians the right of way
at uncontrolled zebra crossings, while Rule 8 requires drivers to
exercise caution and avoid overtaking near crossings. Section 177
of the MV Act provides for penalties, and Sections 279, 337, and
338 of the Indian Penal Code impose criminal liability for rash or
negligent driving causing injury. Yet, in practice, zebra crossings are
often faded or poorly located, signalisation is lacking at busy sites,
public awareness of pedestrian priority remains low, and enforcement
is weak.
15. The amicus has drawn our attention to Annexure 46 of the Report
on Road Accidents in India 2023 which mentions the accident data
in 50 cities having million plus population. An extract of the said data
shows that 4,604 pedestrians were killed in the said 50 cities in the
year 2023. It is also relevant to mention that Format-9 of the same
report collects data regarding location of pedestrian accidents. The
said Format-9 is extracted below:-
322
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Format-9
Location of pedestrian accidents according to whether at Pedestrian
Infrastructures
Pedestrian infrastructure
Number of accidents
Number of persons
Comments
if any
Fatal
Grievous
injury
(need
hospitalization)
Minimum
injury
(not
needing
hospitalization)
Non
injury
Total
Fatal
Grievous
injury
(need
hospitalization)
Minimum
injury
(not
needing
hospitalization)
1. Zebra
Crossing
2. Foot
bridge/
subway
3. footpath
4. Others
(where
there is
no pedestrian
infrastructure)
Provide
chainage
where
pedestrians
in this
category
are dying
Total
STATUTORY PROVISIONS WHICH HAVE A BEARING ON SAFETY
OF PEDESTRIANS
16. Our attention has been drawn to some of the statutory provisions
under the MV Act which inter alia are as follows:
"138. Power of State Government to make rules.-
...
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
323
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
(1A) The State Government may, in the interest of road
safety, make rules for the purposes of regulating the
activities and access of non-mechanically propelled
vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national
highways;
Provided that in the case of national highways, such rules
shall be framed in consultation with the National Highways
Authority of India."
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for:
...
(h) prohibiting the use of foot-paths or pavements by
motor vehicles;
(i) generally, the prevention of danger, injury or annoyance
to the public or any person, or of danger or injury to property
or of obstruction to traffic; and
(j) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.
198-A Failure to comply with standards for road design,
construction and maintenance.-
(1) Any designated authority, contractor, consultant
or concessionaire responsible for the design or
construction or maintenance of the safety standards
of the road shall follow such design, construction and
maintenance standards, as may be prescribed by the
Central Government from time to time.
(2) Where failure on the part of the designated authority,
contractor, consultant or concessionaire responsible
under sub-section (1) to comply with standards for
road design, construction and maintenance, results
in death or disability, such authority or contractor or
concessionaire shall be punishable with a fine which
may extend to one lakh rupees and the same shall
be paid to the Fund constituted under section 164B.
(3) .............."
324
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
210-C Power of Central Government to make rules.
The Central Government may make rules for-
(a) design, construction and maintenance standards for
National highways;
(b) such other factors as may be taken into account by
the Court under sub-section (3) of section 198-A;
(c)
any other matter which is, or has to be, prescribed
by the Central Government."
210-D Power of State Government to make rules.
The State Government may make rules for design,
construction and maintenance standards for roads other
than national highways, and for any other matter which is,
or may be, prescribed by the State Government."
17. The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 210-C
of the MV Act, has framed the Central Motor Vehicles (Eleventh
Amendment) Rules, 2020 vide the Notification dated 25.09.2020
issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government
of India (MoRTH), which came in force w.e.f. 01.10.2020. Rule 166
reads thus:
"166. Road Design, Construction and Maintenance
Standards.-
(1) The design, construction and maintenance of national
highways shall be in accordance with the standards
and specifications of the Indian Road Congress
as may be applicable, or any other instructions or
guidelines issued by the Central Government from
time to time.
(2) The design, construction and maintenance of roads
other than national highways shall be in accordance
with the standards and specifications of the Indian
Road Congress as may be applicable, or any
other instructions or guidelines issued by the State
Government from time to time.;
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
325
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
(3) Subject to the previous approval of the Central
Government or State Government, as the case
may be, deviations from applicable standards,
specifications, instructions and guidelines issued
under sub-rule (1) or (2), may be made due to local
conditions including but not limited to site constraints
or built-up area or land acquisition, and a copy of
the said approval shall be annexed as part of the
relevant contract.
(4) The contract shall clearly define the terms designated
authority, consultant and concessionaire."
GUIDELINES FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY [SECOND REVISION]
JUNE, 2022 PUBLISHED BY INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS (IRC
103-2022)
18. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the Government of
India has filed an affidavit dated 27.08.2025 stating that comprehensive
guidelines have been framed by the Indian Roads Congress [IRC], a
technical body under the aegis of the MoRTH, called Guidelines for
Pedestrian Safety [Second Revision] June, 2022 IRC 103-2022.
These Guidelines provide detailed specifications/ standards for the
design and construction of pedestrian facilities, including footpaths
that are accessible by all, including Persons with Disabilities. The
said Guidelines also prescribe the standards required for safe
pedestrian crossings.
19. By virtue of Rule 166 of the Rules, the above Guidelines are binding
in so far as National Highways are concerned and perhaps on States,
unless specified to the contrary. Though the Guidelines are very
detailed, some of the salient features of the said Guidelines, which
deal with footpaths, are as follows:-
a)
Minimum width of footpaths in different zones, viz. Residential,
Neighborhood level commercial street, City level commercial
street and High street shopping level. The relevant part of the
said Guidelines is extracted herein below [pg.8 of Guidelines]:-
326
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Table 2 Minimum Clear Widths of different Zones on
Footpaths as per adjoining Landuse:
Adjoining
landuse
a)Minimum
walking/
pedestrian
zone width
(mtrs)
b)Minimum
dead/
frontage
Zone width
(mtrs)
c) Minimum
multi-utility
zone width
(mtrs)
Minimum
total
footpath
width (mtrs)
(a+b+c)
Residential
(Fig.8)
2.0
0.5
1.5
4.0 (for a
15m wide
street
with 6m
undivided
carriageway)
Neighbourhood level
commercial
street,
(Fig.9)
2.5
1.0
1.5
5.0 (for a
18m wide
street
with 7m
undivided
carriageway)
City-level
commercial
street,
high-street
shopping
street
(Fig.10)
4.0
1.0
1.5
6.5 (for a
21m wide
street
with 7m
undivided
carriageway)
b)
The Guidelines also provide as follows [pg.9 of Guidelines]:-
"Walking zone of minimum 2.5m should be considered
for streets with schools, hospitals, markets, bus
stops, public parks and gardens (recreation) at the
neighborhood level."
c)
Height: [pg.10 of Guidelines]- The height of the footpath should
be 150mm above the adjoining finished carriageway level to
ensure comfortable access to all pedestrians, especially the
elderly and children, and prevent illegal parking by not allowing
vehicles to mount over the footpath.
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
327
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
d)
Surface: Footpath surface should be even, firm, free from
cracks and well-drained. Surface should be of anti-skid material
to ensure usability and safety in all-weather conditions. Vitrified
tiles should be used for tactile pavers as they have high load
bearing capacity and are durable. Footpath surface should have
gradient (slope) to prevent accumulation of water.
e)
For Persons with Disability, Clause 6.5 of the Guidelines
provide as follows:-
"6.5 Tactile Pavers:
Visually impaired pedestrians need guidance
while walking to find their way, overcome
obstacles, and cross safely. Two types of tactile
tiles are used- guiding and warning tiles as
shown in Figs.29 and 30. Detail specification
of tile design can be referred in IRC:SP:117.
Guiding tiles have straight continuous lines
that indicate the route. They are helpful in large
areas such as transport terminals, public spaces
and wide footpaths (more than 4m) for easy
navigation, as the usual guidance given by the
edge of the footpath or compound wall is not
within the reach of stick used by visually impaired
to navigate. Only warning tiles are recommended
on footpaths with width less than 4m. Warning
tiles helps to warn against level difference
and obstacles, and further informs on how to
navigate. It should be placed at the beginning
and end of the ramps and stairs. Warning tiles
should be provided at property entrances,
intersections and pedestrian crossings. Two sets
of pedestrian warning tiles should be provided
so that the pedestrian does not miss it."
f)
At this stage, it may also be relevant to mention that the Ministry
of Housing and Urban Affairs have issued the Harmonised
Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built
Environment for Persons with Disability and Elderly Persons
in 2021. Section 3.7 provides detailed guidelines for use of
328
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
kerb ramps on pathways and sideways for convenience of
persons with disabilities, wheelchair users and elderly persons;
Section 3.8 provides for specific guidelines to create safe and
accessible pedestrian crossings for mobility for all, including
wheelchair users, baby prams and people with luggage trolleys,
etc. Section 39 provides for Tactile Guiding Surface Indicators to
provide warning and guidance to people with visual difficulties.
g)
Use of Bollards: To prevent illegal parking of vehicles on the
footpaths, the Guidelines recommend use of bollards. Bollards
should be provided at locations on footpath where illegal vehicle
encroachment is possible, such as around property entrance
access ramps, raised pedestrian crossings or kerb edge of
footpath. Bollards should be 0.5-0.7m high with a clear spacing
of 0.6m between them and one with 1m clear width to ensure
movement of wheelchair users, caregivers with pram and
persons with luggage.
20. The IRC Guidelines also deal with pedestrian crossings. Pedestrians
of all age groups and abilities should be able to cross the streets
safely and conveniently. Pedestrians mostly cross at mid-block and
at intersections. Frequent opportunities for at grade crossings should
be available on urban streets. Crossings that are located far apart
increases the walking distance which leads pedestrians to cross
randomly. Similarly, if the waiting time to cross increases, pedestrians
tend to become impatient and cross in an unsafe condition, subjecting
themselves to the risk of road crash. [Pg.22 of the Guidelines]
21. Pedestrian crossings are of two kinds: at grade and grade-separated.
'At grade pedestrian crossings'1 provide crossing at the street level,
whereas grade separated infrastructure provide crossing above or
1
"6.7.1 At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings [at pg.23 of Guidelines]- At grade pedestrian crossings are mainly
of two kinds- tabletop/ raised crossing and painted zebra crossing. Tabletop or raised crossings are
recommended at all unsignalized crossings as it provides comfortable and safe crossing to all road
users including persons on wheelchair, elderly and caregivers with pram. It allows pedestrians to cross
at the same level as the footpath. It also acts as a traffic claiming measure that ensures road safety to
both pedestrians and motorists. Crossing is raised at the same level as the adjacent footpath finished
level. Ramps of 1:8 slope is provided for vehicle access. Crossing should be minimum 2m wide. Bollards
should be provided at both ends of the crossing and at median to prevent vehicles from (especially twowheelers) taking U-turns and entering the footpath. Atleast one bollard spacing should ensure access to
wheelchair users. It is recommended to provide traffic calming measure (speed hump) 10-20m before
the crossing. This will help to slow down the vehicle in advance and ensure pedestrian safety. Tactile
pavers should be provided to guide visually impaired persons. Provision for storm water drainage before
the ramp should be provided. Asphalt concrete may be used for the table top surface."
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
329
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
below the street level. Foot over bridges and subways are grade
separated pedestrian crossings. 'At grade' pedestrian crossings are
recommended over grade separated ones, as they provide quick,
short and comfortable crossing. 4m wide crossings are recommended
in streets with high pedestrian volumes such as schools, transit
stations, shopping complex etc. Pedestrian crossings should be
clearly visible to all road users by appropriate markings.
22. Accidents frequently occur in school zones and other vulnerable
corridors with high numbers of children and elderly pedestrians.
Although IRC Guidelines Part 11 prescribe measures such as raised
crossings, zebra markings, and traffic calming, these are often
not implemented. Vulnerable corridors are also not systematically
identified using accident data, which leads to weak prioritisation of
safety interventions and exposes pedestrians to unnecessary risks.
23. Annexure-2 of the IRC Guidelines lays down the nomographs for
planning pedestrian crossings which gives a scientific manner in
which pedestrian crossing can be planned, depending upon the
pedestrian volume. The IRC Guidelines also lay down standards
for signalized crossings for pedestrians and traffic signals with
pedestrians' phases. Part 7 of the IRC Guidelines deal with pedestrian
facilities at intersections, Part 11 deals with pedestrian facilities
around school zones; and Part 12 deals with pedestrian facilities
around transit stations.
PROPER AND WELL-MAINTAINED FOOTPATH(S) IS A
JUDICIALLY RECOGNIZED RIGHT
24. This Court has recognized that safe and encroachment free footpaths
are very vital for movement of pedestrians. Therefore, NHAI, State
Governments and Municipal authorities have a duty to ensure that
footpaths are built in a proper manner and pedestrians are provided
safe opportunities to cross the streets. Some of the judgments of
this Court which deal with the rights of pedestrians, inter alia are:-
(i)
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, reported in
(1985) 3 SCC 545, this Court was dealing with a case of removal
of encroachments from footpaths. This Court observed that:
"57. To summarise, we hold that no person has the
right to encroach, by erecting a structure or otherwise,
330
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on footpaths, pavements or any other place reserved
or earmarked for a public purpose like, for example,
a garden or a playground; ........"
(ii)
In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab
Khan, reported in (1997) 11 SCC 121, this Court observed as
under:
"8. .....Footpath, street or pavement are public
property which are intended to serve the convenience
of the general public. They are not laid for private use
and indeed, their use for a private purpose frustrates
the very object for which they are carved out from
portions of public roads. The main reason for laying
out pavements is to ensure that the pedestrians are
able to go about their daily affairs with a reasonable
measure of safety and security. That facility, which
has matured into a right of the pedestrians, cannot
be set at naught by allowing encroachments to be
made on the pavements. The claim of the pavementdwellers to construct huts on the pavement or road
is a permanent obstruction to free passage of traffic
and pedestrians' safety and security. Therefore, it
would be impermissible to permit or to make use of
the pavement for private purpose. They should allow
passing and repassing by the pedestrians. No one
has a right to make use of a public property for their
private purpose without the requisite authorisation
from the competent authority. It would, therefore, be
but the duty of the competent authority to remove
encroachments on the pavement or footpath of the
public street obstructing free flow of traffic or passing
or repassing by the pedestrians."
(iii) In Sudhir Madan v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, reported
in (2009) 17 SCC 332, this Court observed as under:
"3. We have also to keep in mind the principle that the
right to use the pathway, footpath, etc. is that of the
citizens. No hawker can claim a right to defeat the rights
of other citizens. The hawkers are large in number,
but the population of citizens is many times more than
[2025] 10 S.C.R.
331
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Ors.
that of hawkers and, therefore, the fundamental rights
of the citizens cannot be put in jeopardy by permitting
hawkers and squatters to block roads, footpaths, public
parks, etc. etc. The authority, which frames a scheme,
has to keep this paramount consideration in mind.
Consistent with the rights of citizens, if it is possible
to provide any space to hawkers, squatters, etc. that
may be done consistent with the policy to be framed
by the authority concerned.
xxx
xxx
xxx
5. We do not wish to give the authorities an impression
that the streets, lanes, footpaths and the parks exist
only for hawkers. The reality is that they exist for
the benefit of the ordinary people living in those
localities.....
xxx
xxx
xxx
9.