Supreme Court Mandates States to Legislate on Pedestrian Safety Within Six Months

New Delhi – In a significant move to fortify the safety of pedestrians and non-motorised road users, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of final directions, compelling all States and Union Territories (UTs) to frame and notify specific rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within a stringent six-month deadline. The order, delivered by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan, brings a new level of legislative urgency to a long-standing Public Interest Litigation aimed at curbing the alarming rate of road accidents in the country.

The Court's directive, pronounced on October 7, culminates years of judicial oversight in the writ petition S.RAJASEEKARAN v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (W.P.(C) No. 295/2012) . The bench has moved beyond issuing guidelines to mandating concrete legislative action, emphasising that the right to safe passage on roads and footpaths is a non-negotiable aspect of the fundamental Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Core Mandamus: A Directive to Legislate

The crux of the Supreme Court's order lies in its specific, time-bound directions targeting two critical sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court has directed all States and UTs to exercise their statutory powers to create a binding legal framework for road safety.

First, the bench invoked Section 138(1A) , which 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 order stated unequivocally: "We direct all 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." This directive aims to address a significant regulatory gap, ensuring that the movement of cyclists, rickshaws, and pedestrians is not an afterthought but an integral part of traffic management and road design.

Second, the Court directed the formulation of rules under Section 210D of the Act. This provision grants states the power to establish standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of all roads that are not national highways. The bench ordered that States and UTs must "formulate and notify Rules under Section 210D of the Act within a period of six months... for design, construction and maintenance of standards for roads other than national highways." This is a crucial step towards standardising the quality and safety features of state and municipal roads, which account for a vast majority of the country's road network and are often neglected in terms of safety audits and engineering standards.

The Court’s order also addressed a range of other pressing road safety issues, including the mandatory use of helmets, curbing wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking, and regulating the unauthorised use of high-intensity white LED lights, red and blue beacons, and vehicle hooters, which often create hazardous conditions for other road users.

Constitutional Underpinnings: From Olga Tellis to Article 21

While the directives are statutory, their foundation is deeply rooted in constitutional principles. The bench explicitly reaffirmed its earlier observation from May 2024, stating that "the right to use footpaths and footways is an essential facet of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution."

This interpretation builds upon a rich legacy of judicial precedent, most notably the landmark judgment in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation , which recognized that the right to life extends beyond mere animal existence to include the right to livelihood and, by extension, the necessary infrastructure that makes life dignified and safe. The bench noted how the principle of well-maintained and accessible footpaths has been judicially recognised through this line of jurisprudence.

By linking road safety infrastructure directly to Article 21, the Supreme Court elevates the issue from a matter of administrative policy to one of fundamental rights enforcement. This provides a powerful legal basis for citizens and public interest groups to hold state authorities accountable not just for the existence of roads, but for their quality, safety, and inclusivity, particularly for vulnerable users like pedestrians and persons with disabilities.

The Broader Legal and Regulatory Context

During the pronouncement, Justice Pardiwala meticulously outlined the legal architecture the Court had considered. This included not only the state's rule-making powers under Sections 138 and 210D but also the Central Government's powers under Section 210C, which led to the framing of the Motor Vehicle (Driving) Regulations, 2017 and other rules.

The bench also gave significant weight to the technical standards set by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) , specifically referencing the "Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety (Second Revision, June 2022)" . The judicial recognition and implicit endorsement of these IRC guidelines lend them greater authority, suggesting they should form the technical basis for the rules that states are now mandated to create. This bridges the gap between expert engineering standards and enforceable legal provisions.

The Court’s order is a clear signal that mere executive guidelines are insufficient. By mandating the framing of "Rules," the Court ensures that these safety standards will have the force of law, complete with defined obligations and penalties for non-compliance, including potential action under Section 198A (Failure to comply with standards for road design, construction and maintenance) .

Implications for Governance, Liability, and Legal Practice

The Supreme Court’s directive carries profound implications for multiple stakeholders:

• State Governments and Municipal Bodies: The six-month deadline imposes a significant administrative and legislative task. States must now consult with urban planning, transport, and engineering departments to draft, vet, and notify comprehensive rules. Failure to comply could lead to contempt of court proceedings.

• Infrastructure and Construction Sector: The mandated standards under Section 210D will directly impact contractors and agencies involved in road construction. Legal contracts for road projects will likely need to incorporate these new, legally-binding safety standards. Non-compliance could lead to contractual disputes, penalties, and increased liability.

• Tort and Accident Law: By establishing a clear, statutory duty of care for the state in road design and maintenance, this order strengthens the legal position of accident victims. Litigants will be better able to argue that a failure to adhere to these mandated standards constitutes negligence on the part of the concerned government authority, potentially leading to higher compensation claims.

• Public Interest Litigation: The order provides a new and powerful tool for civil society. Activists and lawyers can now monitor state compliance with the six-month deadline and subsequently challenge the adequacy of the rules framed. Any new infrastructure projects that disregard these rules will be vulnerable to legal challenges.

While the bench has laid down a robust legal framework, Justice Pardiwala astutely remarked after pronouncing the order that "all now depends on how the guidelines are implemented." This oral observation underscores the perpetual challenge of translating judicial directives into tangible on-ground change. The responsibility now shifts squarely to the executive branches of the States and UTs, who will be under the watchful eye of the judiciary and the public to ensure these life-saving measures are not just enacted on paper, but are rigorously enforced on India’s roads.