Highway safety part of right to life: SC in pan-India guidelines

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court has ruled that the safety of commuters on highways is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, underscoring that the State bears a positive obligation to prevent even a single avoidable fatality caused by hazards such as illegal parking or accident-prone “blackspots”. Highway safety part of right to life: SC in pan-India guidelinesIn a judgment released on Saturday, a bench of justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar observed that a road, particularly a high-speed expressway, “must not become a corridor of peril due to administrative lethargy or infrastructural gaps.” The court added that “the loss of even a single life to avoidable hazards like illegal parking or blackspots represents a failure of the State’s protective umbrella.” The ruling came in a suo motu case titled “In Re: Phalodi Accident”, where the court examined systemic lapses in highway safety and the recurring nature of fatal road accidents linked to preventable causes after two fatal accidents in November 2025 — in Phalodi district, Rajasthan, and Rangareddy district, Telangana — that together claimed 34 lives. Expanding the scope of Article 21, the bench clarified that the right to life is not merely a negative guarantee against unlawful deprivation of life but imposes a positive duty on the State to create conditions in which life is preserved and protected. “Recognizing the safety of the commuter as an integral facet of the right to live with dignity,” held the court, emphasising that the State must take proactive steps to eliminate risks that endanger road users. It emphasised that constitutional governance requires more than reactive measures after accidents occur; it demands anticipatory action to remove known dangers from public infrastructure. Referring to recurring incidents caused by unregulated parking of heavy vehicles, poor lighting, lack of signage and unaddressed accident zones, the bench said such failures point to gaps in enforcement and planning rather than mere isolated lapses. To address these concerns, the court issued a series of nationwide directions aimed at strengthening highway safety mechanisms, as it was assisted by amicus curiae and senior advocate ANS Nadkarni and solicitor general Tushar Mehta. The court ordered authorities to identify, audit and rectify accident-prone “blackspots” on a time-bound basis, with periodic reporting and monitoring to ensure compliance. The court made it clear that such locations, where repeated accidents occur, cannot be allowed to persist due to bureaucratic delay or lack of coordination. The bench also directed strict enforcement against illegal parking on highways, particularly of heavy and commercial vehicles, noting that stationary vehicles on high-speed corridors are a major cause of fatal collisions. Authorities have been asked to ensure continuous patrolling, immediate removal of obstructing vehicles, and imposition of penalties to deter violations. Recognising deficiencies in infrastructure, the court called for improvements in road engineering and design, including proper lighting, reflective signage, lane markings, crash barriers, and warning systems, especially in vulnerable stretches. It stressed that highways must adhere to scientifically determined safety standards rather than ad hoc or minimal compliance. The judgment further emphasised the need for institutional coordination among multiple agencies, including road-owning authorities, traffic police, and local administrations, to ensure that safety measures are not fragmented or inconsistently implemented. The court underscored that accountability must be clearly fixed, and lapses cannot be passed between departments. In addition, the court highlighted the importance of data-driven decision-making, directing authorities to maintain and analyse accident data to identify patterns and intervene proactively. It also called for public awareness and compliance measures, recognising that road safety is a shared responsibility, though ultimately anchored in the State’s constitutional duty. The bench indicated that compliance with these directions must be monitored at the appropriate levels, signalling that highway safety would remain under judicial scrutiny if systemic deficiencies persist. The court directed that copies of the order be circulated to the chief secretaries and directors general of Police of all states and Union territories for immediate implementation. The matter will be relisted after two months to report compliance.