DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. on 30 November 2017

Conclusion

A DR. S. RAJASEEKARAN (II)

V.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of2012)

B NOVEMBER30, 2017

[MAl)AN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art. 32 - Public interest litigation -Prayer seeking enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims - Constillltion of Committee on road c safety - Submission of report/recommendations by the Committee -Howeve1; non-implementation of the recommendations by the Government ~ Issuance of directions on road safety and the victims -of road accidents by Supreme Court Directions as regard road safety policy, road safety fimd, road safety action plan. road safety D audits, road safety cell, road safety equipment and road safety education issued - Faithful and sincere compliance of the said directions would save thousands of lives in road accident and crores of rupees paid in compensation by the insurance companies.

Issuing directions, the Court E

HELD: 1.1 In view of the submissions of the Amicus Curiae and the response of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to the suggestions and keeping in mind issues of road safety and the interest of those who may be unfortunate victims of road accidents, the following directions arc issued: F of the State Governments and the State Governments and and F (i) Road Safety Policy: Most of the State Governments and the State Governments and and Union Territories have already framed a Road Safety Policy. Those that have not framed such a policy namely Assam, Nagaland, Tripura, Delhi, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Havcli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to G formulate the Road Safety Policy by 31" January, 2018. All States and Union Territories are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriou~sness.

(ii) State Road Safety Council: All States have already H constituted a Road Safety Council in terms of Section 215 508

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Union Territories of A Daman and Dlu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have not constituted the Road Safety Council as yet. These Union Territories are directed to constitute the State Road Safety Council on or before 31" January, 2018. The responsibility and functions of the B Council would be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety. The State Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps wherever necessary.

(iii) Lead Agency: Only a few States have established the Lead Agency as recommended by the Committee on Road C Safety in its communication of 23'' December, 2014. The States and Union Territories that have not done so should establish the Lead Agency on or before 31" January, 2018 in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee on Road Safety. The Lead Agency would act as the D Secretariat of the State Road Safety Council and coordinate all activities such as licensing issues including issues of driving licences, registration of vehicles, road safety and features of vehicles, along with other allied matters including emission norms and other activities as mentioned E · in the communication dated 23.12.2014.

(iv) Road Safety Fund: Some of the States have already established a Road Safety Fund. Those·States and Union Territories that have not yet established the Road Safety Fund sl;.cu[1]'! do so not later than 31" March, 2018 and report back to the Committee on Road Safety. The corpus of the Road Safety Fund woul~ be from the fines collected for traffic violations and the Fund would be utilized for meeting expenses relating to road safety.

F

(v) Road Safety Action Plan: The purpose of a Road Safety Action Plan is to reduce .the number of road accidents, as G well as the fatality rate. The MoRTH has already requested all the States and Union Territories to prepare a Road Safety Action Plan but It appears that the response to this has been somewhat lukewarm. The State Governments and Union Territories are therefore directed to urgently H

G

A prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 31.03.2018 it int11 action after giving it due publicity.

prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 31.03.2018 and pnt

(vi) District Road Safety Committee: A District Road Safety Committee is required to be set up by the State Government for every district in terms of Section 215(3) B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As suggested by the Amicus and agreed to by the MoRTH, the District Road Safety Committee should be put in place by 31" January, 2018 and should be headed by the Collector of the District and should include amongst others the Superintendent of Police, Health Officers, Engineers of the Public Works c Department, representatives of the National Highways Authority of India, the Road Transport Officer of the District and members of civil society from the District. The District Road Safety Committee must hold regular and periodic meetings to review road safety issues and D take corrective measures. (vii) Engineering Improvement: It appears that one of the main reasons for road accidents is the poor quality of roads, impr(jper design, etc. The MoRTH is of the opinion that the protocol for road design and identification of black E spots needs to be reviewed and enforced. Accordingly, it is directed that the MoRTH should publish a protocol for identification and rectification of black spots and take necessary steps for improving the design of roads to make them safe.

F (viii) Traffic Calming Measures: It is suggested by the Amicus that traffic calming measures must be adopted at accident prone areas. This is agreed to by the MoRTH. However, such measures will need to be studied and then put in place. This is an on-going exercise which must be carried out by the Road Safety Committee with the G assistance of the MoRTH and other stakeholders.

(ix) Road Safety Audits: It is directed that necessary steps be taken by the Committee on Road Safety as well as by the Mi>RTH to work in the direction of Road Safety Audits since there can be little doubt that an audit of road safety H

is "essential to reduce the possibility of road accidents A through corrective measures.

(x) Engineering Design of New Roads: The Road Safety Audit should include the design stage audit of new road projects of 5 kms or more, rather than being based on the cost of the project.

B

(XI) Working Group on Engineering: The recommendations of the Working Group on Engineering (Roads) should be implemented in the terms prayed for by the Amie us as well as those accepted by the MoRTH. These would, of course, be in the nature of interim directions since the National Road Safety Board is likely to be created as proposed in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017.

c

(xii) Drivers' Training: This is the subject matter of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017 and no orders are required to be passed in this regard.

D

(xiii) Lane Driving: The MoRTH has already issued Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 vide GS.R. 634 (E) dated 23'• June, 2017. The Notification should be implemented by the State Governments and Union Territories strictly.

E

(xiv) Road Safety Equipment: The Bureau of Police Research and Training has already prepared a Report on the. subject and has submitted it to the Road Safety Committee in September, 2015. The recommendations in the Report should be implemented including acquisition of cameras and surveillance equipments in detecting traffic and identifying violators. It is also necessary to set up special patrol forces along the National Highways and State Highways for which necessary steps must be taken by the State Governments and Union Territories.

F

G

(xv) Alcohol and Road Safety: The MoR.TH has already written to the States to comply with orders of this Court in this regard. The MoRTH may issue further advisories in this regard on a quarterly basis during the calendar year 2018 so as to serve as a reminder to the State Governments H

. ,

A and Union Territories to implement the directions of this Court .

(xvi) Road Safety Education: The Amic11s as well as MoRTH are in agreement that road safety education and counselling should be incorporated in the curricu)um by B the State Boards by 1" April, 2018. It is directed that the State Governments may seriously consider this recommendation and Include Road Safety Education and Counseling as a part of the school curriculum at the earliest, c (xvii) Sj>eed Governors: Guidelines in this regard have already been issued by the MoRTH. The MoRTH has agreed to upload the Unique Identification Number of the speed governors in the VAHAN database. This should be followed up by the MoRTH with expedition.

D (xviii) Emergency Medical Care: There is agreem< nt that at least one Trauma Care Centre should be set up in every district with necessary facilities and an ambulance. The State Governments and Union Territories should take up this recommendation at the earliest since it is on record that treatment soon after a road accident is crucial fur E saving tl1e life of the victim. The directions Issued in PL Pormana,nd Kotara v. Union of India should be followed.

(xix) Unlvers11l Accident Helpline Number: The MoRTH has stated that there is already a call centre number, that is, 108 provided by the National Health Mission. Due F publicity must be given to this so that an ambulance can he activated at the earliest whenever necessary.

(xx) Permanent Road Safety Cell: All State Governments and Union Territories have already been requested by the MoRTH to set up Road Safety Cells. The State G Governments and Union Territories should establish Permanent Road Safety Cells by 31" January, 2018.

(xxi) Data Collection: The MoRTH bas already taken steps for recording accident data and reports through computerjsed data entry. The State and Union Territories H have been asked to take further action in this regard and make the data public for the information of all stakeholders. A This needs to be followed up and no further orders are necessary in this regard.

(xxii) GPS : The MoRTH has already notified vide GS.R.

No. 1095 (E) dated 28" November, 2016 mandating the fitment of vehicle location tracking devices in all public B service vehicles subject to some exceptions. Since this has cost implications, the MoRTH may assist the State Governments and Union Territories to ensure that to the maximum extent possible and within the shortest time frame, location tracking devices must be fitted in all public C service vehicles as notified.

C

(xxiii) Bus/Truck-Body Building Code: This has already been notified by the MoRTH with regard to buses vide GS.R. No. 287 (E) dated 27[1]• April, 2014 and with regard to trucks vide GS.R. No. 1034(E) dated 2•• November, 2016. No further orders are necessary in this regard.

D

(xxiv) ABS, Air Bags and Headlights: The MoRTH has

already notified for fitment of ABS in motor cycles vide GS.R. No. 310(E) dated 16'" March, 2016 and for four wheelers vide GS.R. No. 120(E) dated tolh February, 2017. As far as air bags are concerned a standard AIS-145 has already been notified. As regards automated headlights, the MoRTH has notified vide GS.R. No. 188(E) dated 22•• February, 2016 for fitment of"Automated Headlights On" in two wheelers manufactured on or after 1" April, 2017. No further orders are required in. this regard except the ·faithful implementation of the various notifications issued by the MoRTH.

E

F

(xxv) Crash Test: This too has been notified by the MoRTH and the test for all light motor vehicles is required to be conducted by the testing agency notified under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. No further orders are required in this regard except the faithful implementation of the notifications and crash standards issued by the MoRTH. (Para 17] [535-A-H; 536-A-H; 537-A-H; 538-A-H; 539-A-H; 540-A-C]

G

H

A

A 1.2 The directions given are those that have been agreed upon by the parties and are in addition to and supplement the directions already given in S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India. The said directions at the instance of the A111ic11s C11riae and the Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Committee on Road Safety and with the support, cooperation and assistance of the MoRTH, would save B thousands of lives in road accidents and crores of rupees in compensatioll payable by the insurance companies-provided the directions ar~ faithfully and sincerely complied with. If there is any doubt or ~larity required in implementing the directions given, the concerned State Government or Union Territory is at liberty c to move the Committee on Road Safety. [Paras 18, 19) (540-D-FJ

Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286 : (1989) 3 SCR 997; S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 36: (2014) 5 SCR 444 - referred to.

D

Case Law Reference

[1989] 3 SCR 997 referred to Para 17 [2014] 5 SCR 444 referred to Para 18 ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of2012. E

Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.

P. S. Narr-asimha, ASG, D.K. Thakur, S.S. Shamshery, AAGs, Gopal Subramanium (AC), Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Agarwal, (AC), Talha Abdul Rahman, Jayavardhan Singh, Pavan Bhushan, Manoj F Swamp, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Sajid Imam Naqvi (for Mis Manoj Swarup & Co.), Krishna Kumar, B. Vinodh Kanna, Ms. Srujana Suman Mund, S.S. Ray, GS. Makker, Surinder S. Rathi, S. L. Gupta, Rajesh Sharma, Rajeev Gupta, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Mahabir Singh Mangla, Varinder Kumar Sharma, M.K. Thakur, Rajesh K. Sharma, Ms. Prerna Mehta, G Dipak K. Nag, Ekansh Bansal, Parmanand Gaur, Bhupesh Narula, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Gopal Singh, Shreyas Jain, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Ms. Mona Sinha, Ms. Surabhi Mehta, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Monika Gosain, Shariq Ahmed, Varindcr Kumar Sharma, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal H Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas,Aditya

Pratap Singh, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, R. Leishangthem Roshmani KH, Ranjan Mukherjee, Naveen Sharma, Mishra Saurabh, Mrs. K. Enatoli Serna, Edward Belho,Amit Kr. Singh, K. Luikang Michael. Z.H. Issac Haiding, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Manuraj, Amit Sharma, Sandeep Singh, Anidt Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet (For Mis Arputham Aruna & Co.), S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Raja Chatterjee, C.K, Ganguli, Piyush Sachdev, P. K. Manohar, Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Neelesh Singh Rao, Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja,Advs. for the appearing parties.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopaedic surgeon, a public spirited citizen and President of the Indian Orthopaedic Association has, inter alia, prayed for enforcement of road safety norms and appropriate treatment of accident victims.

2. The petitioner states that in his capacity as Chairman and Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore, he witnesses daily, the acute loss oflife and limbs caused by road accidents. He suggests that practical measures need to be taken in a time-bound and expeditious manner to give effect to legislations, reports and recommendations for ensuring that the loss oflives due to road accidents is minimized. The petitioner estimates that 90% of the problem of deaths due to road accidents is the result of a lack of strict enforcement of safety rules on_ roads and strict punishment for those who do not obey rules. The petitioner has relied upon data published in l)ecember 2011 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in its publication captioned 'Road Accidents in India 201 O' to indicate that the number of road accidents is increasing every year and that unfortunately more than half the victims are in the economically active age group of25-65 years.

3. Since the petitioner has no pernonal interest in the matter, the writ petition filed by him was taken up as a public interest litigation.

4. Initially, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways opposed the writ petition but as the litigation progressed, the matter was looked at in a non-adversarial manner and considered as one in public interest.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A 5. In view of the non-adversarial stance of the Government of India, this Court passed an order on 22'd April, 2014 constituting a Committee on Road Safety under the Ciiamnanship of Justice K. S. Radhakrishnan, a former judge of this Court. The Committee was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) of the Government ct idiu "" 30th May, 2014 and orders finalizing the B terms anti co!'ditlons of appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Committee were issued on 8th August, 2014.

6. In compliance with the orders of this Court and notwithstanding bureaucratic delays and without having been provided adequate infrastructure and staff, the Committee commenced its work in earnest c from I5lh/16'h May, 2014. The Committee has since submitted 12 reports to this Court but it is not necessary at present to deal with all these reports.

7. On JO<h April, 2015 we recognized the exemplary work being done by the Committee and expressed the view that its recommendations need to be seriously discussed and debated. This was in the context of D the fact that the number of deaths due to road accidents in the country was said to be over I 00,000 in a year, which translates to about one death every three minutes and that the compensation awarded for deaths and other motor accident claims runs into hundreds of crores of rupees.

8. However, it appeared to us that various State Governments

8. However, it appeared to us that various State Governments E were not responding positively to the recommendations made by the Committee and accordingly the Secretary of the MoRTH was directed to call a meeting of his counterparts from all the States and Union Territories on or before 31" May, 2015 to deliberate on the reports prepared by the Committee as well as its recommendations, their F implementation and further measures that could be taken.

9. We also noted that despite the lapse of a considerable period of time, the Government of India was unable to provide adequate facilities to the Committee even though a letter was sent by the learned Attorney General for India on 19th December, 2014 to the Revenue Secretary and G the Urban Development Secretary of the Government oflndia. We are mentioning this fact only to highlight the casualness with which the Government of India was takingthe directions of this Court, in spite of the importance of the work being carried out by the Committee and its non-adverserial stance. We may mention here that as of now, we have been informed that the Committee has been provided with all necessary H facilities and support by the Government of India.

I 0. In the hearing on 26"' August, 2016 we noted that in 2014 the numberof persons who had died in road accidents was 139,671 and that this figure had jumped up in 2015 to 146,133.

A

11. Since we were informed by Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate who was requested to assist us as Amicus Curiae that the State Governments were still not cooperating with the Committee, we had no option but to again direct the Transport Secretaries of all States to attend a meeting to be convened by the Secretary of the MoRTH on 7'h September, 2016. We had to, perforce, set the agenda for the meeting, that is, implementation of the recommendations of the Committee, keeping in mind the very large number of deaths taking place.

B

c

12. On J 9th September, 2016 we noted that in the meeting chaired by the Secretary of the MoRTH convened on 2"" September, 2016 (instead of 7"' September, 2016) only two or three Secretaries of the concerned Transport Ministries of the State Governments had participated and the rest of the State Governments were represented by junior officials and in some cases even the designation of these junior. officials was not D mentioned.

13. During this hearing, we sought to impress upon all concerned that road safety issues should be taken seriously both by the Central Government as well as by the State Governments. We also noted that huge amounts running into hundreds of crores of rupees had been earmarked for road safety and it was also highlighted that a very large number of deaths had been taking place due to road accidents. We noted that the insurance companies had spent an amount of Rs. 11,480 crores by way of compensation for deaths, injuries, third party property damage and other damage due to road accidents during the financial year 2015-16.

E

F

14. On 7"' November, 2016 we again noted that there was one death almost every three minutes as a result of road accidents. Unfortunately, the legal heirs of half the victims were not compensated (perhaps being unaware of their entitlement). We expressed our distress at this unfortunate situation and had to remind all concerned that we were not dealing with an adversarial issue but a public interest litigation for the benefit of the common man particularly for the victims of road accidents and their legal heirs.

G

15. On 11th April, 2017 we were informed by the learned Amicus that the Government of India had woken up to the problems faced due H

A to road accidents and had prepared a Bill for the amendment of the Motor Vehicles A.ct, 1988.

16. Thereiifter, the learned Amicus prepared a chart in three columns: First, relating to the issues that this Court had been dealing with in this public interest litigation; second the views expressed by the B MoRTH on these issues, and third, the orders prayed for by the learned Amicus Curiae. A perusal of the chart indicates that fortunately, the Government oflndia has now begun considering the issues raised in the right spirit and in a non-adversarial manner and has accepted almost all the suggestions. Those that form a part of the Bill seeking to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will be considered by Parliament. The tabular c statement is given below:

i OO.Sis at .1_

[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]

A Standards Date of collvtl"1cement I /validitv Recpirenrnt New fcr bel>1viour Midels-of steering 1.10.2017 B nrchanism of All a vehicle in a Midels-Head-On Ol.10.2019 per Collision AIS "' 0%2008 c Protecti en of New Models-occupants in l.I0.2017 the event of an All Models-offset Frorial 01.10.2019 Collision as per AIS D 098/2008 --Approval of New Mirels-vehicles with 1.10.2018 regiird to tl1e All Models-Protecticn of 01.10.2019 O::cuparts in E the event of a Lateral per Collision AIS "' 099!.2008 Approval of New Mxi!ls-Vehicles with 1.10.2018 F regwd to the All Models-Protecticn of 01.10.2020 Pedefilian and other Vulirrable i Rood Usa-s in G I the Collision event with of a a Motor I Vehicle a• per I AIS 100'2010 H

17. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned A Additional Solicitor General. They have taken us through all the suggestions made and the response of the MoRTH to these suggestions. In view of the submissions, and keeping in mind issues of road safety and the interest of those who may be unfortunate victims ofroad accidents, we issue the following directions:

B

I.Road Safety Policy: Most of the State Governments and Union Territories have already framed a Road Safety Policy. Those that have not framed such a policy namely Assam. Nagaland, Tripura, Delhi, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Havcli andAndaman and Nicobar Islands, must now fonnulate the Road Safety Policy by 31'' January, 2018. All States and Union Territmies are expected to implement the Road Safety Policy with all due earnestness and seriousness.

c

2. State Road Safety Council: All States have already constituted a Road Safety Council in terms of Section 215 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Union Territories of Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Andaman and Nicobar Islands have not constituted the Road Safety Council as yet. We direct these Union Territories to constitute the State Road Safety Council on or before 31" January, 2018. The responsibility and functions of the Council will be as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety. The State Road Safety Councils should periodically review the laws and take appropriate remedial steps wherever necessary.

D

E

3. Lead Agency: Only a few States have established the Lead Agency as recommended by the Committee on Road Safety in its communication of23"' December, 2014. The States and Union Territories that have not done so should establish the Lead Agency on or before 31"January,2018 in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee on Road Safety. It may be mentioned that the Lead Agency will act as the Secretariat of the State Road Safety Council and coordinate all activities such as licensing issues including issues of driving licences, registration of vehicles, road safety and features of vehicles, along with other allied matters including emission norms and other activities as mentioned in the communication dated 2J•d December, 2014.

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

4. Road Safety Fund: Some of the States have already established a Road Safety Fund. Those States and Union Territories that have not yet established the Road Safety Fund should do so not later than 31" March, 2018 and report back to the Committee on Road Safety. The corpus of the Road Safety Fund will be from the fines collected for traffic violations and the Fund will be utilized for meeting expenses relating to road safety.

5. Road Safety Actfon Plan: The purpose of a Road Safety Action Plan is to reduce the number of road accidents, as well as the fatality rate. ''r-he MoRTH has already requested all the States and Union Territories to prepare a Road Safety Action Plan but it appears that the response to this has been somewhat lukewarm. The State Governments and Union Territories are therefore directed to urgently prepare a Road Safety Action Plan by 3 l" March, 2018 and put it into action after giving it due publicity.

6. District Road Safety Committee: A District Road Safety Collll1!littee is required to be set up by the .State Government for every district in tenns of Section 215(3) Mthc Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As suggest<!\!. by the learned Amicus and agreed to by the MoRTH, the District Road Safety Committee should be put in place by 31" January, 2018 and should be headed by the Collector of the District and should include amongst others the Superintendent of Police, Health Officers, Engineers of the Public Works Department, representatives of the National Highways Authority of India, the Road Transport Officer of the District and members of civil society from the District. The District Road Safety Committee must hold regular and periodic meetings to review road safety issues and take corrective measures.

7. Engineering Improvement: It appears that one of the main reasons for road accidents is the poor quality of roads, improper design. etc. The MoRTH is of the opinion that the protocol for road desii,'11 and identification ofblack spots needs to be reviewed and enforced. Accordingly, it is directed that the MoRTH should publish a protocol for identification and rectification ofblack spots and take necessary steps for improving the design of roads to make them safe.

8. Traffic Calming Measures: It is suggested by the learned Amicus that traffic calming measures must be adopted at accident prone areas. This is agreed to hy the MoRTH. However, such measures will need to be studied and then put in place. This is an on-going exercise which must be carried out by the Road Safety Committee with the assistance of the MoRTH and other stakeholders.

9. Road Safety Audits: There is agreement, in principle, between the learned Amicus and the MoRTH to carry out Road Safety Audits. However, there appears to be a dearth of qualified auditors in Road Safety Engineering. The MoRTH supports the idea of capacity building. It is, therefore, directed that necessary steps be taken by the Committee on Road Safety as well as by the MoRTH to work in this direction since there can be little doubt that an audit of road safety is essential to reduce the possibility of road accidents through corrective measures.

10. Engineering Design of New Roads: The MoRTH is of the view, and the learned Amicus is also in agreement, that the Road Safety Audit as mentioned above should include the design stage audit of new road projects of 5 kms or more, rather than being based on the cost of the project. It is ordered accordingly.

11. Working Group on Engineering: The Working Group on Engineering (Roads) has already submitted a Report which is available with the Road Safety Committee as well as the MoRTH. This Working Group was constituted pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of the 12"' National Road Safety Council held on 25"' March, 2011. The recommendations of the Working Group should be implemented in the terms prayed for by the· learned Amicus as well as those accepted by the MoRTH. These will, of course, be in the nature of interim directions since the National Road Safety Board is likely to be created as proposed in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017.

12. Drivers' Training: This is the subject matter of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017 and no orders are required to be passed in this regard.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A 13. Lane Driving: The MoRTH has already issued Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 vide GS.R. 634 (E) dated 23n1June,2017.

The Notification should be implemented by the State Governments and U111ion Territories strictly. l:J 14. Road Safety Equipment: The Bureau of Police Research and T~aining has already prepared a Report on the subject and has submitted it to the Road Safety Committee in September, 2015. The recommendations in the Report should be implemented including acquisition of cameras and surveillance equipments in c detecting traffic and identifying violators. [t is also necessary to set up special patrol forces along the National Highways and State Highways for which necessary steps must be taken by the State Governments and Union Territories.

15. Alcohol and Road Safety: The MoRTH has already written D to the States to comply with orders of this Court in this regard. 1 he MoRTH may issue further advisories in this regard on a quarterly basis during the calendar year 2018 so as to serve as a reminder to the State Governments and Union Territories to implement the directions of this Court.

E 16. Road Safety Education: The learned Amicus as well as MoRT}! are in agreement that road safety education and counselling should be incorporated in the curriculum by the State Boards by 1" April, 2018. It is directed that the State Governments may seriously consider this recommendation and include Road Safety Education and Counseling as ·A part of the F school curriculum at the earliest.

17. Speed Governors: Guidelines in this regard have already been issued by the MoRTH. The MoRTH has agreed to upload the Unique Identification Number of the speed governors in the VAHAN database. This should be followed up by the MoRTH G with expedition.

18. Emergency Medical Care: There is agreement that at least one Trauma Care Centre should be set up in every district with necessary facilities and an ambulance. The State Governments and Union Territories should take up this H recommendation at the earliest since it is on record that treatment soon after a road accident is crucial for saving the life of the victim. In this context, it may also be mentioned that this Court has issued certain directions in Pt Parmana11d Katara v. U11io11 of India' which should be followed.

A

19. Universal Accident Helpline Number: The MoRTH has stated that there is already a call centre number, that is, I 08 provided by the National Health Mission. Due publicity must be given to this so that an ambulance can be activated at the earliest whenever necessary.

B

20. Permanent Road Safety Cell: All State Governments and Union Territories have already been requested by the MoRTH to set up Road Safety Cells. The State Governments and Union Territories should establish Permanent Road Safety Cells by 3 I" January, 2018.

Union Territories have already been requested by the MoRTH c

21. Data Collection: The MoRTH has already taken steps for recording accident data and reports through computerised data entry. The State and Union Territories have been asked to take further action in this regard and make the data public for the information of all stakeholders. This needs to be followed up and no further orders are necessary in this regard.

D

22. GPS : The MoRTH has already notified vide GS.R. No. 1095 (E) dated 28ili November, 2016 mandating the fitment of vehicle location tracking devices in all public service vehicles subject to some exceptions. Since this has cost implications, the MoRTH may assist the State Governments and Union Territories to ensure that to the maximum extent possible and within the shortest time frame, location tracking devices must be fitted in all public service vehicles as notified.

E

F

23. Bus/Truck-Body Building Code: This has already been notified by the MoRTH with regard to buses vide G.S.R. No. 287 (E) dated 27ili April, 2014 and with regard to trucks vide GS.R. No. 1034(£) dated 2'"November, 2016. No furtherorders are necessary in this regard.

G

24. ABS, Air Bags and Headlights: The MoRTH has already notified for fitment of ABS in motor cycles vide GS.R. No. 31 O(E)

H

A dated 16" March, 2016 and for four wheelers vide G.S.R. No. 120(E) dated 10"' February, 2017. As far as air bags arc concerned a standard AIS-145 has already been notified. As regards automated headlights, the MoRTH has notified vide G.S.R. No. I 88(E) dated 22'" February, 20 ! 6 for fitment of "Automated Headlights On" in two wheelers manufactured on B or after I" April, 2017. No further orders are required in this regard except the faithful implementation of the various notifications issued by the MoRTH.

25. Crash Test: This too has been notified by the MoRTH and the test for all light motor vehicles is required to be conducted by c the testing agency notified under Ruic 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 1989. No further orders are required in this regard except the faithful implementation of the notifications and crash standards issued by the MoRTH.

18. We make it clear that the directions given above arc those D that have been ~greed upon by the parties before us and are in addition to and supplement the directions already given in S.Rajaseekaran v. Union of lndia1[2 ]We commend the efforts put in by the learned Amicus Curiae and the Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Committee on Road Safety. We are confident that the directions given above, at their instance and E with the support. cooperation and assistance of the MoRTH, will save thousands oflives in road accidents and crores ofrupees in compensation payable by the insurance companies - provided the directions are faithfully and sincerely complied with.

19. We also make it clear that if there is any doubt or clarity F required in implementing the directions given, the concerned State Government or Union Territory is at liberty to move the Committee on Road Safety.

20. We may note that none of the directions given by us or the directions given earlier by this Court are difficult to comply with. In this r; connection, we may draw attention to the excellent document prepared by the Committee on Road Safety and the MoRTH titled "Consulting Services to Audit the Imple111entation by the States of the Directions Issued by the Committee on Road Safety - Group 4- Final Report" concerning Haryana prepared in September 2017. The Report has 'r2014l 6 sec J6 H

received considerable support from the Delhi Integrated Multi-Model A Transit System Limited (DIMTS), Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme (TRIPP), HT-Delhi and The Energy and Resource Institute (TERI). It would be worthwhile if similar reports are prepared and published so that roads all over the country are rendered far safer than what they arc today.

B

21. List for further proceedings on 7'" February, 2018.

Nidhi Jain

Directions issued.