On January 6, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala heard a petition concerning road safety through electronic monitoring. A bench requested that Justice AM Sapre, chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, convene a meeting to establish an agreed formulation of modalities for implementing the provisions of Section 136A of the MV Act.

The bench issued the following ruling:

"The MV Act was amended in 2019 so as to incorporate provisions of 136A for electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety on national highways, state highways, roads and urban cities. The issue now is about ensuring the provisions of Section 136A by drawing out state specific implementation guidelines. This would have to be done in collaboration with State governments. Section 215 contemplates the setting up of Road safety councils and committees at the national, state, and district levels. Having due regard to the legislative framework, it would be appropriate if a preliminary meeting is convened by Justice AM Sapre, chairperson of Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety with the secretary and the Ministry of Road transport and highways, the ASG, and Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus so that an agreed formulation can be placed before this court for setting out modalities for implementing the provisions of Section 136A. The meeting may be convened preferably in two weeks. The amicus can then report to the court. List in 1st week of February."

Advocate KC Jain, appearing for the petitioner, stated that overspeeding was the leading cause of road deaths, accounting for 70% of all fatalities. As a result, he urged the court to ensure that Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 was implemented and that roads were electronically monitored to prevent such fatalities. Section 136A states that- "The State Government shall ensure electronic monitoring and enforcement of road safety in the manner provided under sub-section (2) on national highways, state highways, roads or in any urban city within a State which has a population up to such limits as may be prescribed by the Central Government."

He also drew the bench's attention to Section 215B of the Motor Vehicle Act, which provides for the establishment of a National Road Safety Board to advise the Central Government or State Government on all aspects of road safety and traffic management.

According to Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, the amicus curiae in the case, during previous hearings, the then-chairperson of the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety, Justice (retd) KS Radhakrishnan, provided a roadmap to ensure road safety. He went on to say-

"The committee worked as a facilitating mechanism where it came out with its way of how to implement these things in the most acceptable manner to the governments. The general direction of please comply with 136A will not be enough. The committee has to come up with state specific requirements for each state."

Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, Additional Solicitor General, proposed an overall online dashboard for collecting data from states. She stated-

"This problem crops up when we have to collect information from the states and coordinate with so many states as to what is happening on the ground."

Case Title: S Rajaseekaran v UOI
Citation: W.P.(C) No. 295/2012
Read the complete judgment on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/20376/20376_2012_1_13_40745_Order_06-Jan-2023.pdf