The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking effective implementation and enforcement of mandatory seat belt usage, child restraint systems and first-aid kits in vehicles, while granting liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of his petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for consideration of his recommendations.

The Court observed that non-compliance with existing safety laws and lax enforcement by authorities was “essentially a question of maintenance of law and order as well as traffic discipline,” and that a judicial order restraining the legal provisions “per se will not aid in their enforcement.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr Jothydev Kesavadev, who is described by the bench as “an internationally acclaimed diabetic specialist and researcher with over 300 publications to his credit.”

The petitioner relied on Section 194B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), which prescribes penalties for driving without a seat belt and for carrying passengers not wearing seat belts, and also mandates that children below a prescribed age be secured through seat belts or child restraint systems. Rule 138(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 was also pointed out, which requires the driver, front seat occupants, and applicable front-facing rear seat occupants to wear seat belts while the vehicle is in motion.

It was also submitted that despite these provisions, a large number of vehicles had rendered seat belts sockets non-functional through seat covers, removal of receptacles, and other voluntary modifications. Another point was made with regard to “negligence on behalf of the citizens” coupled with weak enforcement of existing laws, passengers in road accidents faced a heightened risk of serious injury or death.

The petitioner had sent a representation to the Union government in February this year highlighting the concerns. However, no response was received, constraining him to pursue remedy before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Considering the submissions, the bench noted the fact that “there are adequate laws for mandatory compliance with safety measures, including safety belts, etc., while the vehicle is in motion, is hardly disputable.” It, however, held that the real issue lies not in the absence of law, but in enforcement, observing that non-compliance by passengers and failure of law enforcement agencies to act against defaulters was a matter of law and order and traffic discipline, and that a judicial order “reiterating the mandatory legal provisions per se will not aid in their enforcement.”

Disposing of the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to forward a copy of petition to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of India to consider the suggestions/recommendations made by him as part of road safety measures.

Case: Jothydev Kesavadev v Union of India

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 938

Appearance:

For Petitioner:Mr Wills Mathews, Adv.; Mr Ginesh P, Adv.; Ms Shivangi Ranjan, Adv.; Mr Dhanesh M Nair, Adv.; Mr Paul John Edison, Adv.; Mr Rakesh Garg, Adv.; Mr Ashish Gopal Garg, Adv; Ms Shweta Garg, AOR;

Click Here To Read/Download Order