Context:

The Supreme Court of India recently issued a landmark directive, asking all States and Union Territories to frame and notify rules under relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within six months.

Background:

The Court acted in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the alarming road fatality rates in India and the inaction by State authorities. According to 2023 government data:

·         Over 35,000 pedestrians died in road accidents

·         Over 54,000 two-wheeler riders and passengers were killed due to not wearing helmets

What Court said?

Supreme Court of India directed all States and Union Territories to frame comprehensive road safety rules within six months under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. These rules must address:

·         Helmet compliance (for both riders and pillion passengers)

·         Lane discipline and wrong-lane driving

·         Pedestrian safety and protection at crossings

·         Control of dazzling LED headlights

·         Ban on unauthorised use of red-blue strobe lights and hooters

The Court emphasized the urgent need to prevent road fatalities, especially among pedestrians and two-wheeler users.

Significance:

• • • The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced many provisions aiming to improve road safety; among them, Sections like 138(1A), 210C, 210D etc., but many States have not yet made the corresponding rules. The SC’s order pushes for activation of these legal mandates.
    • Pedestrian safety has constitutional dimensions: the right to life (Article 21) has been interpreted by the Courts to include safe mobility, safe footpaths, safe crossings etc. The order fits into a pattern of judicial insistence to translate rights into infrastructure and regulation.

Challenges:

Different States may have very different road environments, existing rules, administrative capacities, and budgets. Uniform deadline is good, but implementation will be uneven.

·        Coordination issues: For rules under Section 138(1A) that pertain to national highways, consultation with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) will be necessary.

·        Overlapping jurisdictions: municipal bodies, urban local bodies, state PWD/roads authorities etc. will all have roles in design, maintenance, enforcement etc.

Implications:

• • • If properly implemented, this order can significantly reduce fatalities / injuries among the most vulnerable road users: pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities.
    • It could lead to more walkable cities, inclusive infrastructure, and better urban design.
    • It strengthens legal accountability: States/UTs that fail to frame rules may face more judicial scrutiny.
    • It can also set a precedent for judicial oversight in ensuring implementation of road safety legislation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s order is a significant push in India’s road safety journey. It bridges the gap between aspirational legal provisions and actual regulatory infrastructure that protects vulnerable road users. However, drafting rules is only step one; the real test will lie in their implementation, enforcement, and ensuring that India’s roads become safer and more inclusive for all.