The Supreme Court taking the driver’s seat in road safety governance has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and other road-owning bodies to formulate an action plan and carry out a phased survey in major cities across the country to pinpoint areas that need additional pedestrian crossing facilities.

Such a shift in gears stems from the Public Interest Litigation filed by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a renowned orthopedic surgeon, who raised concern over the “national emergency” of road safety.

At the outset, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan made it clear that it will continue to monitor the implementation of the directions proposed, which includes:

(i) safety of pedestrians while walking on footpaths,

(ii) making pedestrian crossings safe

(iii) wearing of helmets

(iv) Wrong lane driving and unsafe overtaking, and

(v) Use of dazzling LED white lights, unauthorized sale and misuse of redblue strobe lights and hooters.

Upon perusal of the publication “Road Accidents in India 2023” by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), which records 1,72,890 deaths in road accidents during the year 2023 including 35,221 pedestrian fatalities, reflecting an increase from 2022 the Court emphasized the urgent necessity for authorities to ensure that pedestrians in the country can walk safely on streets and, more importantly, cross roads without risk to their lives. The court observed that “there is a dire need to ensure that the pedestrian crossings, whether at traffic intersections or otherwise on roads, are safe so that pedestrians are not run over by vehicles while crossing the roads.”

Further, The court referred to precedents such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) 11 SCC 121, and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2019) 10 SCC 614, and reaffirmed that footpaths are public property meant exclusively for pedestrian use and that encroachments, illegal parking, and private constructions on them are impermissible. The bench stated that “safe and encroachment-free footpaths are vital for pedestrian movement,” holding municipal and road authorities duty-bound to ensure their upkeep.

The Court also took note of the comprehensive guidelines issued by the Indian Roads Congress (IRC), which lay down detailed standards for the design and construction of pedestrian facilities, including universally accessible footpaths for Persons with Disabilities. While acknowledging that implementing these standards across the country poses a significant challenge, the bench emphasized that sincere efforts must be undertaken to ensure that all footpaths and pedestrian crossings are brought into conformity with the prescribed IRC Guidelines.

Thus in light of the above, the Court laid down comprehensive guidelines on covering five key areas: pedestrian safety, helmet enforcement, lane discipline, dazzling LED lights, and illegal sirens.

Additionally, the Court was presented with the example of the road crossing between the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road, where thousands of people, including lawyers, litigants, employees, and visitors, cross daily amidst heavy vehicular traffic. Taking note of this high pedestrian volume and the absence of adequate safety measures, the Court directed that “the road owning agencies in the 50 cities mentioned in Annexure 46 of the Report on Road Accidents, 2023 and the NHAI to draw up an action plan and start phase-wise survey to assess the requirement of additional pedestrian crossing facilities. The NHAI/road owning agencies can begin with crowded streets and where there is recorded data on accidents. We would expect that over the next 1 year, at least 20 percent of the roads in the above cities can be taken up for survey and wherever required, pedestrian crossings can be created.”

Accordingly, the first priority was given to the road crossing between the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on Mathura Road, directing that the necessary work at the site be completed within a period of seven months.

Case Title: : S. Rajaseekaran V Union Of India And Ors. And Ors.,W.P.(C) No. 295/2012