Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Partition Suit As Cause Of Action Is Recurring; Second Rejection Of Plaint Application Barred By Res Judicata: Telangana High Court Married Daughter Entitled To Appointment As Fair Price Shop Dealer On Compassionate Grounds; Marital Status No Bar: Allahabad High Court Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court Conviction Not A Condition Precedent For Confiscation Of Vehicle Used In Forest Offence: Bombay High Court Advocate’s Professional Call To Client No Proof Of Conspiracy; Sterling Evidence Like CCTV Can Justify Quashing FIR: Gujarat High Court Revenue Entries Changed Without Notifying Affected Parties Are Void; High Court Can Upset Perverse Findings In Second Appeal: Himachal Pradesh HC Mandatory Injunction For Removing Sunshades Or Closing Windows Cannot Be Granted If No Encroachment Is Proved: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Resume Work Through Third Parties Until 30-Day Period For Contractor’s Post-Termination Compliance Expires: Madras High Court Circumstantial Chain Fails If Prosecution Doesn't Rule Out Accidental Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Wife’s Status As Practicing Lawyer Or Professional Qualification No Absolute Bar To Grant Of Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court Legally Wedded Wife And Second Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Family Pension If Second Wife Was Nominated & Cared For Deceased: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Suit Filed At The Fag End Of Limitation Reflects Lack Of Readiness And Willingness: Supreme Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Prove Financial Readiness At Relevant Time Of Transaction: Supreme Court MACT |Just Compensation For Deceased Professional Students Must Reflect Future Career Trajectory: Supreme Court Stationary Vehicle Parked At Night Without Warning Signs Poses Evident Hazard; SC Refuses To Reduce Compensation For CA Student’s Death Motor Accident Claims: 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Considered If Amputation Prevents Manual Worker From Pursuing Sole Avocation: Supreme Court Substantive Amendments Rendering Land Transfers 'Void' Are Prospective; Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Sale Deeds: Supreme Court Registered Sale Deed Carries Formidable Presumption Of Genuineness; Minor Witness Discrepancies Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Document: Supreme Court Mere Breach Of Sale Agreement Not Cheating Unless Dishonest Intent Existed From Inception: Telangana High Court Mining Lease Applications For First Schedule Minerals Deemed 'Disposed Of' Once Recommended & Approved Prior To 2015: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration Under NDPS Act Militates Against Article 21; Conditional Liberty Must Override Section 37 Embargo: Supreme Court Perpetual Minor Status Of Deity Does Not Exempt It From Limitation Laws; Condonation Requires 'Sufficient Cause': Orissa High Court State Cannot 'Approbate And Reprobate' Bravery: MP High Court Mandates Out-Of-Turn Promotion For Cop Who Rescued Truck From 200-Foot Gorge Drugs Controller Can Regulate Misleading Discount Boards In Medical Shops; Right To Business Not A Shield For Deception: Kerala High Court Courts Cannot Direct Parliament To Adopt Rotational Reservation For Assembly Seats; Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act Valid: Allahabad High Court Official To Pay Rs 20,000 Costs From Own Pocket: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Municipal Commissioner Liable For Failing To Take Court Orders To 'Logical End' IPC Sections 406 & 420 Cannot Co-exist On Same Set Of Facts; Substantial Compliance Enough For Section 156(3) CrPC Affidavit: Kerala High Court Family Courts Duty-Bound To Declare Marital Status In Mutual Consent Muslim Divorces Even If Wife Admits Divorce: Gujarat High Court Allottee’s Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Under Section 18 RERA Is Absolute; Not Fettered By Section 55 Contract Act: Bombay High Court Sentencing Not A Purely Retributive Exercise Divorced From Factual Matrix: Supreme Court Reduces Jail Term Of Man Who Forged Bail Documents

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