Back
Supreme Court Suggests Speed Breakers and Rumble Strips Near Crossing
The on Tuesday directed the to take a decision on installing speed breakers and rumble strips near the crossing on Mathura Road, adjacent to the National Zoological Garden, after expressing dissatisfaction with the existing safety arrangements. A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan emphasised that pedestrian safety at the busy stretch was a matter of public interest and that the installation of a traffic signal alone was insufficient to protect the thousands of people who cross the road daily.
The proceedings arose in a long-pending , S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012), which concerns comprehensive road safety reforms across the country. The Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s ongoing commitment to ensuring that infrastructure measures keep pace with the needs of vulnerable road users.
Background: A Persistent Safety Lapse
The crossing has been a focal point of concern for the Supreme Court since at least , when the Bench issued a slew of directions aimed at improving pedestrian safety nationwide. In its order, the Court specifically identified the crossing on Mathura Road as a priority location, noting that “thousands of employees, litigants, lawyers, children, and families cross the road, without any red light or foot overbridge or any traffic calming measure, putting their lives at risk.” The absence of a designated pedestrian crossing, traffic signal, or foot overbridge had forced pedestrians to navigate the busy six-lane road manually, often dodging speeding vehicles.
Following these observations, the installed a red-light signal at the crossing. However, as the hearing on , revealed, the measure was considered inadequate by both the Court and the .
The Hearing: Amicus Seeks More Than a Signal
, appearing as , informed the Bench that while the installation of a traffic signal was a positive step, it had not resolved the core problem. He explained that many employees of the would alight from buses on the left side of the road and then manually cross to the right side because no pedestrian crossing had been marked. The presence of the historical Purana Quila (Old Fort) on one side of the road further restricted the possibility of constructing a foot overbridge or other permanent infrastructure.
Agarwal proposed that the constitute an expert committee to study vehicular movement and pedestrian traffic flow at the location. He specifically recommended the installation of speed breakers and rumble strips as immediate traffic-calming measures to force vehicles to slow down. “My suggestion is to let MoRTH examine the vehicular movement and the pedestrian traffic flow,” he submitted.
, representing the , argued that the red-light signal should be sufficient. He assured the Court that if additional measures were deemed necessary, the government would comply. Banerjee stated that the authorities had already attempted to find better solutions.
“It’s a Matter of Lives”: The Court’s Firm Response
Justice Pardiwala was unconvinced by the government’s stance. He remarked, “It’s a matter of lives. We will visit, both of us. You join us. Everybody will go there. Do you want to do that? It is for public interest.” The offer to personally inspect the crossing highlighted the Bench’s determination to ensure that the safety of pedestrians was not compromised by bureaucratic inertia.
When the ASG reiterated that the government had tried to come up with better solutions, Justice Pardiwala retorted, “Solutions in India should be much, much better.” The observation reflected the Court’s view that road safety interventions must go beyond the bare minimum and be genuinely effective in protecting human life.
The Bench accordingly directed the to take a decision on the installation of speed breakers and rumble strips at the crossing. While the Court did not mandate immediate implementation, it made clear that the existing arrangement was unsatisfactory and that further action was expected.
Broader Road Safety Agenda: National Board and Vehicle Tracking
The hearing also touched upon other aspects of the road safety litigation. The Court disposed of certain interlocutory applications related to vehicle tracking devices and of the . It directed the to clarify, at the next hearing, whether the Board had become fully functional. The , established under the , is intended to coordinate and advise on road safety measures across the country. Its operational status has been a recurring issue in the PIL, with the Court monitoring progress to ensure that institutional mechanisms are not left dormant.
Legal Analysis: Pedestrian Safety as a Fundamental Right
The Supreme Court’s insistence on physical traffic-calming measures—rather than relying solely on signals—reaffirms the principle that the under encompasses the right to safe roads. In a series of judgments, the Court has held that the state has a positive obligation to design and maintain infrastructure that minimises risks to pedestrians, who are the most vulnerable road users.
By proposing to inspect the site personally, the Bench signalled that it would not accept technical or bureaucratic explanations as substitutes for on-ground improvement. This approach is consistent with the Court’s willingness to use its to ensure that public authorities comply with constitutional mandates. The direction to MoRTH to examine vehicular movement also underscores the need for evidence-based policymaking in road safety.
Impact on Legal Practice and Infrastructure Litigation
For legal professionals, this case highlights the growing importance of as a tool for enforcing infrastructure standards. Lawyers handling road accident claims or advocating for safer streets may draw on the Court’s observations to argue that the absence of pedestrian crossings, signals, or traffic-calming measures can constitute a breach of the state’s . The case also sets a precedent for courts to demand site visits and expert assessments rather than relying solely on affidavits.
Moreover, the ongoing monitoring of the ’s functionality signals that institutional accountability is a key concern. Practitioners advising government bodies or NGOs on road safety compliance should note that the judiciary is prepared to scrutinise both infrastructure and governance.
Conclusion: A Call for Meaningful Action
The Supreme Court’s intervention at the crossing is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing road safety in India. While a traffic signal is a step forward, it is not a substitute for a comprehensive pedestrian-friendly design that includes speed breakers, rumble strips, marked crossings, and awareness campaigns. The judges’ willingness to visit the site underscores the seriousness with which they view the issue.
As the case continues, the must now decide whether to adopt the recommended measures. The next hearing will also clarify the status of the , which is critical for coordinating long-term safety reforms. For now, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: road safety cannot be achieved through half-measures—it requires a commitment to protecting every life that crosses the road.
