Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act

26 September 2024 9:27 AM

By: sayum


States Ordered to Enforce Section 136A of Motor Vehicles Act and Submit Progress Reports by December 2024. Supreme Court of India in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, issued critical directions for the implementation of Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which mandates the use of electronic devices such as speed cameras, CCTV, and body-worn cameras for monitoring road safety. The Court stressed the urgent need for electronic enforcement to reduce traffic violations and improve road safety. State Governments were directed to implement the provisions immediately and provide progress reports by December 6, 2024, with a review scheduled on December 13, 2024.

The writ petition, filed by S. Rajaseekaran, raised concerns over the delay in the implementation of Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into effect on April 1, 2021. This section, alongside Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, was designed to ensure electronic monitoring on national highways, state highways, and urban roads using devices like speed cameras, CCTVs, and body-worn cameras for better traffic law enforcement. However, the petitioner highlighted that this crucial provision had not yet been effectively enforced by most States, leaving road safety enforcement lagging.

Section 136A mandates electronic monitoring of road safety through devices like speed cameras, CCTV cameras, and body-worn cameras. The Court emphasized the importance of this provision, stating:

"If Section 136A is implemented, the State machinery will easily get the data and information of the vehicles and individuals violating the provisions of the 1988 Act, so that violators can be prosecuted." [Para 3]

The Court noted that the provision facilitates automated enforcement of traffic laws, making it easier to prosecute offenders using electronic evidence, rather than relying solely on law enforcement personnel to observe violations in real-time.

The Court further stressed the importance of Rule 167A, which sets out the guidelines for the installation and certification of electronic monitoring devices, and directed State Governments to ensure these are implemented in high-risk corridors and high-density areas. Rule 167A also prescribes the issuance of e-challans based on photographic and video evidence from the electronic devices. The Court directed:

"State Governments shall ensure that appropriate electronic enforcement devices are placed at high-risk and high-density corridors on National Highways and State Highways, and at critical junctions in major cities." [Para 4]

To ensure the continuous monitoring of the implementation, the Court tasked the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety with overseeing the execution of Section 136A and Rule 167A across the country. The Court made it clear that these electronic devices should not be used for surveillance, but strictly for the purpose of traffic enforcement. The Committee was directed to take necessary steps in ensuring compliance by State Governments. The Court said:

"The issue of implementation of Section 136A of the 1988 Act and Rule 167A of the 1989 Rules can always be monitored by the said Committee after considering the views of all stakeholders." [Para 7]

The Supreme Court issued the following key directives:

Immediate Implementation of Section 136A: All State Governments and Union Territories were directed to immediately implement Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 167A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.

Progress Reports by December 6, 2024: States such as Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal were specifically instructed to submit reports on the steps taken to implement these provisions by December 6, 2024. The Court will review the reports on December 13, 2024.

Monitoring by Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety: The Committee was tasked with ensuring that the provisions are enforced and that e-challans are issued based on footage from the electronic enforcement devices.

Warning Signs and Notifications: The Court highlighted the importance of placing conspicuous warning signs before stretches monitored by electronic enforcement devices and required that physical stop lines and pedestrian crossings be clearly marked to improve road safety compliance.

Certification and Renewal of Devices: The Court directed that the electronic enforcement devices should be certified and renewed annually to ensure their proper functioning. Any footage captured by these devices must be stored until the disposal of the case or appeal.

The Supreme Court's order marks a significant step toward improving road safety in India through the effective implementation of electronic enforcement measures. By mandating immediate action and progress reporting, the Court has ensured that Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 167A will finally be enforced, making roads safer and reducing traffic violations. The Court also balanced the need for enforcement with privacy concerns, explicitly ruling out the use of these technologies for surveillance purposes.

Date of Decision: September 2, 2024

S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News