Supreme Court Mandates Nationwide Road Safety Rules for Pedestrians and Non-Motorised Vehicles

In a significant move to address the escalating crisis of road accidents in India, the Supreme Court has issued a sweeping directive to all states and Union Territories, mandating the formulation of comprehensive road safety rules within a six-month timeframe. The order specifically targets the protection of vulnerable road users, including pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles, marking a pivotal moment in the nation's public safety jurisprudence.

A division bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice K V Viswanathan , hearing a petition filed by Coimbatore-based surgeon Dr. S Rajaseekaran, underscored the urgent need for a robust regulatory framework to safeguard those most at risk on Indian roads. The Court's intervention aims to standardize safety protocols and infrastructure, moving beyond piecemeal efforts to a cohesive national strategy.

The ruling comes at a critical time, with road accident fatalities in India remaining alarmingly high. Dr. Rajaseekaran's petition highlighted the necessity for coordinated efforts from the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to prevent these avoidable tragedies. The Court’s directions operationalize key provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which have, in many jurisdictions, remained underutilized.

This national mandate stands in contrast to the more deferential approach often seen in High Courts dealing with similar public safety issues. Recently, the Karnataka High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to compel state authorities to install additional, life-saving signages in accident-prone areas of Bidar district. This juxtaposition of judicial approaches highlights the evolving role of the judiciary in compelling executive action on matters of public welfare.

The Supreme Court's Directive: A Deeper Look

The apex court's order is precise and two-pronged, invoking specific sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to enforce compliance. The bench directed all states and UTs to frame and notify rules under two key provisions within the next six months:

• Section 138(1A): This section empowers state governments to make rules for regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways. The Court’s directive activates this provision, aiming to create dedicated infrastructure, right-of-way rules, and safety standards for cyclists, rickshaw pullers, and pedestrians who currently navigate a hostile, vehicle-dominated environment.

• Section 210D: This provision deals with the power of states to formulate rules regarding the design, construction, and maintenance standards for roads, other than national highways. By mandating the notification of rules under this section, the Supreme Court is pushing for uniform quality and safety features in state highways, district roads, and urban streets, which account for a significant portion of the country's road network and accident toll.

In its order, the bench stated unequivocally:

"We direct all the states and UTs to formulate rules under Section 138(1A) of the Motor Vehicles Act within a period of six months, if not already framed, for the purpose of regulating activities and access of non-mechanical propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways."

The Court further added:

"We direct all the states and UTs to formulate and notify rules under Section 210D of the Act within a period of six months, if not already framed, for design, construction and maintenance of standards for roads other than national highways."

This time-bound, statute-backed mandate is a significant departure from generalized advisories. It places a legal obligation on state governments to act, with the failure to do so potentially inviting further judicial scrutiny or contempt proceedings. For legal practitioners, this opens new avenues for public interest litigation and accountability actions to ensure the timely and effective implementation of these rules.

A Tale of Two Courts: Contrasting Judicial Approaches

While the Supreme Court has taken a proactive, top-down approach, the handling of a similar issue at the state level provides a telling contrast. The Karnataka High Court recently heard a PIL filed by Gurunath Vadde ( Gurunath Vadde AND State of Karnataka & Others , Wp 1363/2025), which raised concerns over the lack of sufficient signages and information boards on highways and inter-village roads in Bidar district, leading to a high number of accidents.

The petitioner argued that a representation made to the authorities in October 2024 had gone unheeded, forcing him to approach the court for a writ of mandamus. However, the division bench, led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha , opted for a more restrained approach.

Instead of issuing specific directions, the bench disposed of the petition with an observation that the authorities should consider the plea as a fresh representation. The Court noted:

“We do not consider it necessary to issue any directions, as sought for by the petitioner. However, the concerned authorities shall consider the contents of the present petition as petitioner's representation and take such steps as they may consider necessary.”

This approach, while respecting the separation of powers and leaving policy implementation to the executive, highlights a common judicial pathway for PILs concerning civic issues. The Court effectively converts the petition into an administrative reminder, placing the onus back on the government to act at its discretion. While this maintains judicial propriety, petitioners often find it a less potent remedy compared to a direct mandamus.

The divergence between the Supreme Court's national directive and the Karnataka High Court's handling of a local plea illustrates the different scales at which the judiciary operates. The Supreme Court, addressing a systemic national failure, has used its constitutional authority to compel a uniform policy response. The High Court, dealing with a specific administrative lapse, chose a path of deference, nudging the executive rather than commanding it.

Legal and Practical Implications for the Future

The Supreme Court's order carries profound implications for state governments, urban planning bodies, and legal professionals.

For State Governments: The six-month deadline imposes significant pressure to draft, debate, and notify comprehensive rules. This will require inter-departmental coordination between transport, public works, urban development, and law enforcement agencies. States that already have some rules in place will need to review and update them to meet the spirit of the Court's directive, ensuring they are comprehensive and effectively implemented.

For Urban and Rural Infrastructure: The mandate under Section 210D could trigger a paradigm shift in road design. Planners and engineers will need to incorporate dedicated pedestrian walkways, protected cycle lanes, and safe crossing points as standard features, not afterthoughts. This aligns with global best practices in urban design, which prioritize a "complete streets" model catering to all users.

For Legal Practitioners and Activists: The judgment provides a powerful tool for holding governments accountable. Litigators can now directly challenge the absence or inadequacy of rules post the six-month deadline. It strengthens the legal basis for demanding safer road infrastructure and compensation for victims of accidents caused by poor road design or a lack of pedestrian facilities.

The challenge, as with many such landmark judicial orders, will lie in the implementation. The true measure of this directive's success will be the tangible changes on the ground—safer streets, fewer accidents, and a road network that respects the right to life of every citizen, whether they are in a car, on a bicycle, or on foot.