No Concept Of Lane Driving In India, Most Accidents Due To That : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked that there is effectively “no concept of lane driving in India” as it dealt with a batch of matters concerning road safety compliance.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the matter S Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, in which the Court has been issuing directions from time to time for road safety.

During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala commented, "How do you ensure in this country that drivers do not do away with lane driving? There is no concept of lane driving in this country. Most of the accidents occurs due to that."

"Lane driving is something which will reduce the accidents considerably. Government must focus on it," Justice Pardiwala added, asking the Union to look into this aspect.

Ensure transport vehicles have tracking devices

On the issue of Vehicle Location Tracking Devices (VLTDs), the Court took note of submissions by the amicus curiae regarding Rule 125H of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which mandates installation of vehicle location tracking devices and emergency buttons in public service vehicles. The amicus highlighted the importance of the system in enabling timely emergency responses and improving passenger safety, particularly for women, children, and elderly persons.

The Court recorded with concern that less than 1% of transport vehicles currently have the mandated tracking devices installed.

Calling this situation disturbing, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to strictly enforce Rule 125H by ensuring installation of vehicle location tracking devices and panic buttons in both new and existing public service vehicles in a time-bound and verifiable manner.

The Court further ordered that no public service vehicle should be granted a fitness certificate under Section 56 or a permit under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless installation of such devices is verified and reflected in the Vahan application. It also directed retrofitting of these devices in vehicles registered up to December 21, 2018, and integration of compliance monitoring with the Vahan database for real-time oversight.

When it was suggested that manufacturers themselves should pre-fit these devices in vehicles, the Court welcomed the proposal and directed the Union Government to engage with automobile manufacturers across the country and place an appropriate report before the Court.

On speed-limiting devices, the Court took serious note of the failure of most States to file compliance reports despite earlier directions concerning Rule 118 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. It reiterated that manufacturers are obligated to fit speed limiting devices and directed State governments to submit fresh comprehensive affidavits supported by Vahan and Parivahan portal statistics.

The Court also expressed displeasure over the continued non-constitution of the National Road Safety Board, observing that despite six months having been granted on May 4, 2025, the Board remains unconstituted. Granting what it termed a final opportunity, the Court directed that the Board be constituted within three months.

In relation to the Uttar Pradesh legislation under which prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act stood abated before a cut-off date, the Court noted the State's April 8, 2026 ordinance seeking revival of previously abated non-compoundable cases. Observing that the issue required further deliberation, the Court directed the State to provide details on how many cases would be revived and the mechanism for doing so.