Back
Seeks Maharashtra Reply on Plea Over Missing Tracking Devices in Public Vehicles
The has issued a notice to the , seeking its response to a petition that alleges are registering public service vehicles—including buses, cabs, and autorickshaws—without the mandatory installation of and . The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, hearing the matter on Wednesday, directed the state to file its reply within 14 days, with the case likely to be listed thereafter.
The petition, filed by —a distributor of tracking devices—contends that the failure to enforce the VLTD mandate undermines the safety framework established after the 2012 Delhi gang rape, commonly known as the Nirbhaya case. The petitioner argues that without functional tracking devices and , passengers—particularly women and children—are left vulnerable in emergencies, as the panic button connects to nothing if the device is missing or not linked to government records.
Safety in Peril: The Nirbhaya Framework at Risk
The Nirbhaya Fund, a non-lapsable corpus created by the , was intended to fund projects that enhance women's safety. One such initiative mandated the installation of VLTDs and in all public service vehicles. The system works by transmitting the vehicle's live location to a state monitoring centre when a passenger presses the panic button, enabling a rapid emergency response.
According to the petitioner’s counsel,
,
"The idea is simple, every bus, cab and other public service vehicle carries a tracking device with
. If a passenger is in danger and presses a panic button, an alert with the vehicle's live location reaches the State's monitoring centre and emergency response system, so help can be sent."
He further explained that the protection is effective only if two conditions are met: the device is physically fitted and operational, and the government’s records correctly link that device to the vehicle.
"If either fails, the panic button connects to nothing,"
Dubey added.
The petition highlights that since , RTOs have been approving and registering vehicles without verifying the presence or functionality of VLTDs. Even after the petitioner alerted the , who issued directives in July and for strict compliance, the RTOs allegedly continued to flout the rules. The petition claims that at least ten vehicles were registered without proper VLTD installation, and fitness certificates were renewed without checking the operational status of the devices.
RTOs Accused of Flouting Mandates
The petitioner specifically alleges that officers of the
acted in
"clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles framework."
The plea states,
"They approved and registered at least 10 vehicles without verifying the physical presence and functional condition of
VLTD and by renewing the fitness certificates of numerous vehicles without ensuring the validity and operation status of such devices."
Such actions, the petitioner argues,
"defeat the
, obstruct the petitioner’s lawful business activities, and undermine the integrity of the regulatory framework."
Moreover, the petition raises concerns about . It alleges that RTOs used manipulated or mismatched VLTD data, altering unique IMEI-linked vehicle information in an unauthorized manner and mapping it onto different vehicles. This backend data fraud effectively renders the tracking system useless, as the government’s records no longer correctly link the device to the actual vehicle. The petitioner has sought an and time-bound police investigation into the alleged .
The legal basis for the mandate is , which was amended on , to make VLTD installation compulsory for all public service vehicles. The petition seeks a direction to the respondents to strictly implement this rule and to take action against officers who approved registrations and renewals without compliance.
High Court Steps In
The Division Bench, after hearing the preliminary arguments, issued a notice to the state government, directing it to file its reply within two weeks. The court has yet to make any observations on the merits of the case, but the notice indicates a willingness to examine the allegations of widespread .
The matter has significant implications for the safety of women and children who rely on public transport in Maharashtra. If the allegations are proven, it would mean that thousands of vehicles are operating without the promised safety net, potentially exposing passengers to grave risks. The petitioner has also argued that the by RTOs has adversely affected its , as non-compliant operators are allowed to function while compliant distributors face business losses.
Legal and Regulatory Implications
This case highlights a critical gap between policy and implementation. While the Central Motor Vehicles Rules mandate the installation of VLTDs, the enforcement at the state level appears lax. The petition underscores the need for robust oversight mechanisms to ensure that safety regulations are not merely paper requirements.
Legal experts note that if the court finds the state authorities in , it could lead to significant administrative reforms, including stricter verification protocols and accountability for RTO officers. The case also raises questions about the integrity of digital records maintained by transport departments and the potential for fraud in vehicle registration processes.
For the legal community, the matter serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in enforcing public safety mandates. The ’s intervention could set a precedent for other states where similar may be rampant.
Conclusion
As the state prepares its reply, all eyes are on the next hearing, likely to take place in two weeks. The outcome will determine whether the Nirbhaya safety framework is effectively implemented in Maharashtra or remains a hollow promise. For now, the has sent a clear signal that the safety of passengers—especially women—cannot be compromised by administrative negligence.
