Context
The Supreme Court of India recently invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to issue wide-ranging directions on highway safety after two fatal road accidents. This intervention highlights the growing concern over road safety in India and the constitutional obligation of
the State to protect life.
Article 142 and the Concept of Complete Justice
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in a case before it. This provision is unique in its scope, allowing the Court to go beyond existing statutory frameworks where laws are inadequate or silent.
Over the years, Article 142 has been used in diverse areas such as environmental protection, governance reforms, and public safety. While the power is discretionary, it must remain consistent with constitutional principles and cannot override substantive rights. Its invocation in road safety reflects the urgency of addressing systemic failures where executive action has been insufficient.
Link with Right to Life under Article 21
The Court’s intervention is closely tied to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has expanded this right to include the right to live with dignity and safety.
In the context of road safety, the Court has repeatedly held that:
- Safe road infrastructure is a positive obligation of the State
- Preventable accidents amount to a violation of the right to life
- Administrative negligence cannot be justified when human lives are at stake Thus, road safety is no longer merely a policy issue but a constitutional mandate.
Road Safety in India: Structural Concerns
India continues to record one of the highest numbers of road accidents globally. A striking statistic reveals that National Highways constitute only about 2% of total road length but account for nearly 30% of road fatalities. This indicates deep structural deficiencies in highway management.
Key challenges include:
- Weak enforcement of traffic regulations
- Unsafe parking practices, especially by heavy vehicles
- Lack of real-time surveillance and monitoring
- Inadequate infrastructure such as poor lighting, absence of signage, and limited emergency response systems
These issues collectively create hazardous conditions, turning highways into high-risk zones.
Background of the Case
The Court’s suo motu intervention was triggered by two major accidents in November 2025:
- Rajasthan: A bus collided with a stationary trailer on the Bharatmala Expressway, killing 15 people
- Telangana: A lorry hit a bus while attempting to avoid a pothole, resulting in 19 deaths
These tragic incidents exposed serious lapses in road safety management and prompted judicial scrutiny.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court strongly criticised agencies such as the National Highways Authority of India and State Public Works Departments for negligence.
Key observations included:
- Highways must not become “corridors of peril” due to administrative failures
- Illegal parking of heavy vehicles near roadside establishments significantly increases accident risks
- Authorities have failed to ensure basic safety standards despite repeated warnings
The Court underscored that road safety cannot be compromised due to bureaucratic inefficiency.
Key Directions Issued by the Court
- Regulation of Parking
- Complete prohibition on parking of heavy/commercial vehicles on highways
- Allowed only in designated areas like lay-bys and wayside amenities
- Technology-Driven Monitoring
- Deployment of Advanced Traffic Management Systems (ATMS)
- Use of GPS-enabled systems for real-time violation detection
- Emergency Response Mechanism
- Mandatory deployment of ambulances and recovery vehicles at intervals of 75 km
- Aim: Reduce response time and fatalities
- Identification of Black Spots
- Authorities must identify accident-prone areas within 45 days
- Installation of safety measures such as lighting, cameras, and warning signs
Regulation of Roadside Activities
The Court also addressed unsafe roadside practices:
- Prohibited construction of new dhabas and commercial establishments within the Right of Way (ROW)
- Ordered demolition of unauthorised structures
- Imposed restrictions on land use near highways
These measures aim to reduce congestion and minimise accident risks caused by roadside encroachments.
Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms
To ensure effective implementation, the Court directed:
- Creation of dedicated highway surveillance teams involving police and transport departments
- Round-the-clock monitoring of highways
- Integration of surveillance systems with e-challan mechanisms for strict enforcement This reflects a shift toward technology-driven governance in road safety.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment marks an important evolution in constitutional jurisprudence:
- Reinforces Article 21 as a tool for ensuring public safety
- Expands the scope of Article 142 in governance-related issues
- Highlights judicial activism in filling administrative gaps
- Pushes for accountability of public authorities
It also signals that failure to ensure road safety may invite judicial intervention.
Challenges Ahead
Despite strong directives, several challenges remain:
- Implementation gaps due to federal structure (Centre–State coordination)
- Resource constraints in deploying technology and emergency systems
- Resistance to removal of roadside establishments
- Need for behavioural change among drivers and enforcement agencies Without sustained effort, directives may remain ineffective.
Way Forward
- Strengthen institutional coordination between central and state agencies
- Invest in smart infrastructure and surveillance technologies
- Promote road safety awareness and strict enforcement
- Establish accountability mechanisms for lapses
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention represents a decisive step toward safer highways in India. By invoking Article 142, the Court has reaffirmed that road safety is integral to the right to life. However, long-term success depends on effective implementation, institutional accountability, and public cooperation. The judgment serves as a reminder that governance
failures affecting human life cannot be ignored and will invite constitutional scrutiny.