Section 138 NI Act | Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold Merely For Non-Production Of Postal Track Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court Departmental Dismissal Based On Identical Evidence Discarded By Criminal Court Amounts To 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment Upheld: High Court Rules Lok Ayukta Is Not A Court, Its Declaration Can Be Changed To Recommendation Subsidized Industrial Plots Are Meant To Generate Employment, Allottees Must Strictly Adhere To Timebound Project Schedules: Supreme Court Allottees Cannot Keep Subsidised Land Unutilised: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Piaggio's UP Industrial Plot CAG Audit Cannot Substitute Criminal Investigation To Trace Money Trails: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs CBI To Probe Arunachal Pradesh Public Contracts, Says Constitutional Violation Not Diluted By Statistics Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC Cannot Be Presumed Merely Because Multiple Accused Participated In A Sudden Fight: Supreme Court Mere Use Of Abusive Word 'Bastard' Does Not Amount To Obscenity Under Section 294(b) IPC: Supreme Court Independent Medical Board's Opinion Crucial To Prevent Harassment Of Doctors In Consent Disputes: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case High Court Can Examine Questions Of Fact Under Section 482 CrPC To Prevent Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Surgeon 'Every Link Must Be Conclusively Established': Supreme Court Acquits Constable In Murder Case, Reiterates Strict Standard For Circumstantial Evidence Murder Conviction Cannot Rest Solely On Voice Identification In Darkness: Supreme Court Acquits Police Constable After 12 Years CCTV Footage Belies Assault Claims: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Neighbours Karta Cannot Gift Entire Joint Family Property To One Coparcener Without Consent; Settlement Void Ab Initio: Madras High Court Fresh Application For Return Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata Despite Favourable Supreme Court Ruling On Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Registration Of Adoption Deed Not Mandatory For Compassionate Appointment Under Hindu Adoptions Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Company Cannot Claim Contributory Negligence Without Examining Driver Or Challenging Charge Sheet: AP High Court Accused In Child Pornography Cases Cannot Be Discharged Merely Because Age Of Unidentified Victims Cannot Be Conclusively Proved: Delhi High Court Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land

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