In the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court of India, a case that began over a decade ago continues to unfold, piece by piece, shaping the very fabric of how we experience life on Indian roads. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2012, a seemingly dry legal file number, has become the epicenter of a monumental judicial effort to tame India's chaotic and often deadly traffic ecosystem.
The recent hearing on November 20, 2025, was not just another date on the judicial calendar. It was a microcosm of India's struggle with road safety, pitting urgent humanitarian concerns against systemic inertia, and the rule of law against political expediency. The proceedings, detailed in a comprehensive court record, reveal a judiciary that is not merely reacting, but proactively architecting a safer, more accountable future.
This blog post delves into the three critical fronts on which this legal battle is being fought: the right to cashless treatment for accident victims, the shocking mass abatement of traffic cases in Uttar Pradesh, and the fundamental right to pedestrian pathways.
Front 1: Healing the Wounded – The Push for Cashless Treatment
Imagine the scene: a horrific road accident. A victim is rushed to the hospital. The immediate fear is for their life, but a secondary, insidious fear soon follows—the fear of crippling medical debt. This is the reality for millions in India. To combat this, an Interim Application (IA No. 43387 of 2025) was presented before the court, seeking a revolutionary change.
The Ask: A Lifeline for Victims
The application pleaded with the Court to direct the Union of India to create a scheme under Section 162(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This scheme would mandate:
Cashless Treatment: Insurance companies must provide cashless treatment for road accident victims in hospitals.
Post-Discharge Support: Timely reimbursement of post-discharge medical expenses within two weeks of submitting bills.
Transparency and Awareness: A public awareness campaign and regular bulletins on the number of beneficiaries and treatment costs.
The rationale is starkly clear. As per electronic-Detailed Accident Reports (e-DAR), nearly 60% of road accidents involve vehicles with third-party insurance. The mechanism for financial support exists; it simply needs to be activated and enforced to ensure that treatment is not delayed or denied due to a lack of immediate funds.
The Court's Approach: Deliberate and Expert-Driven
Instead of issuing immediate, sweeping directions, the two-judge bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardimala and K.V. Viswanathan took a sagacious, evidence-based route. They referred the entire matter to the Hon’ble Justice A.M. Sapre Committee, a specialized body constituted by the Supreme Court on road safety.
The Court requested the committee to:
- Deliberate on all the reliefs prayed for.
- Hear all stakeholders.
- Furnish a holistic report within six weeks.
This move underscores a critical judicial strategy: complex, systemic problems require expert consultation and stakeholder buy-in. The Court is aiming not for a quick fix, but for a robust, well-considered framework that can stand the test of time and implementation.
Front 2: Justice Derailed – Uttar Pradesh’s Great Traffic Amnesty
If the first front was about compassion, the second is about accountability—or the shocking lack thereof. The hearing on IA No. 119142 of 2024 unveiled a legal scandal of epic proportions in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
The "Get Out of Jail Free" Act
The application challenged the Uttar Pradesh Criminal Law (Composition of Offences and Abatement of Trials) (Amendment) Act, 2023 (UP Act No. 4 of 2023). The effect of this law was drastic: it automatically abated (terminated) all criminal proceedings for offences under the Motor Vehicles Act that were pending before magistrates as of December 31, 2021.
This wasn't an isolated incident. The petitioner provided a damning timeline showing that this has been a recurring practice in UP for 44 uninterrupted years, with successive laws wiping the slate clean for traffic offenders from before 1977 all the way up to 2021.
The Court's Grave Concern: The Death of Deterrence
The Supreme Court’s order reflects deep-seated alarm. The justices systematically dismantled the potential justification for such an amnesty.
The Non-Compoundable Offence Conundrum: The Court provided a detailed list of serious, non-compoundable offences that were abated. These are not mere traffic violations; they are significant transgressions where the state, in the interest of public safety, does not allow for a compromise. The list is chilling:
- Section 185: Driving by a drunken person or under the influence of drugs.
- Section 184: Dangerous driving, including jumping red lights and illegal overtaking.
- Section 192: Using a vehicle without registration.
Offences relating to accidents.
The "Scot-Free" Dilemma: The Court minced no words, stating that a person booked for drunk driving simply "goes scot-free." It questioned the logic: just because a case is five years old, does that mean the offence ceases to be a threat to public safety? The abatement, the Court observed, "would take away the sting of deterrence."
A Flawed Defence: The State of U.P. argued that in serious cases (like a drunk driver killing a pedestrian), the offender would still be charged under the Indian Penal Code (e.g., Section 304A for causing death by negligence). The Court brusquely dismissed this as "hardly a justification," noting that it is "too much" to drop a specific charge under the MV Act and rely solely on the IPC. The two legal frameworks are meant to work in tandem, not be mutually exclusive.
The Chilling Correlation: Amnesty and Accidents
The petitioner drew a direct line between this culture of impunity and Uttar Pradesh’s grim status as the leading state in road fatalities for years 2018 through 2022. When the consequence for breaking the law is systematically erased, the law itself becomes a suggestion. This "lax approach," the Court noted, has "led to a disregard for traffic regulations, resulting in a surge in road accidents, fatalities, and injuries."
The Court has now demanded a section-wise justification for this abatement from the Secretaries of the Legal and Transport Departments of Uttar Pradesh, effectively putting the state government in the dock. The message is clear: clearing court backlogs cannot come at the cost of public safety and the rule of law.
Front 3: Reclaiming the Footpath – The Pedestrian’s Right to the City
The third major intervention (IA No. 288062 of 2025) shifted the focus from vehicles to the most vulnerable road users: pedestrians.
The Vision: Walkable, Livable Cities
The application sought visionary directions to transform urban landscapes, asking for:
Geospatial Mapping: A comprehensive mapping of the entire pedestrian network to identify existing and missing footpaths.
Master Pedestrian Plans: City-wide plans to create continuous, connected footpath networks, treating them with the same importance as roadways.
Inclusive Design: Integration of street vendors into footpath design through multi-functional zones, aligning with the Street Vendors Act, 2014.
Accountability: Phased implementation with clear budgets, responsible agencies, and progress audits.
The application specifically called out the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), citing its own Universal Footpath Policy, and demanded compliance reports.
The Court’s Response: A Step Towards Safer Streets
The Court acknowledged the importance of this issue by:
- Issuing formal notice on the application.
- Impleading the BMC as a formal respondent, ensuring the municipal body is directly accountable to the Court.
- Requesting the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, to study the matter and assist the Court in the next hearing.
This marks a significant moment. It signals the Supreme Court’s willingness to venture into the domain of urban planning and civic infrastructure to uphold the fundamental right of citizens to safe and dignified movement.
The Bigger Picture: A Tapestry of Judicial Governance
This single hearing is a masterclass in judicial governance. The Court is not operating in silos but is weaving a tapestry where healthcare, justice, and urban infrastructure are all seen as integral to the singular goal of road safety.
This is further evidenced by the Court’s reference to its own order from April 17, 2025, which dealt with a basket of critical issues:
- Swift Response Protocols: Directing states to develop systems for immediate help to reach accident victims.
- National Road Safety Board: Pulling up the Central Government for not properly constituting this crucial statutory body, which exists "only on paper."
- Drivers' Working Hours: Directing the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) to enforce the legal limits on driving hours (8 hours a day, 48 hours a week) to combat fatigue-related accidents.
- Speed Monitoring via FASTag: Exploring the innovative use of real-time FASTag data to curb speeding.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The Supreme Court's proceedings on November 20, 2025, are a powerful testament to the role of a proactive judiciary in a functioning democracy. The Court is acting as the nation’s conscience and its strategic commander in the war on road chaos.
The directions are clear:
- For the Central Government: Work on a cashless treatment scheme and finally operationalize the National Road Safety Board.
- For the State of Uttar Pradesh: Answer for a policy that trades justice for administrative convenience and undermines public safety.
- For All States and Municipalities: Start taking pedestrian infrastructure and swift accident response as serious, legally-mandated obligations.
The next date of hearing is set for January 22, 2026. The nation will be watching. The outcomes of this case will determine whether India chooses a path of compassionate, accountable, and well-designed road governance, or continues to accept chaos, impunity, and preventable death as the price of mobility. The Supreme Court has drawn the line; it is now up to the executive to walk the talk.
0 Comments