Pedestrian Safety and State Obligations: Supreme Court’s Directions under the Motor Vehicles Act

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in its on-going active consideration of the subject of road safety in the case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors.¹, has repeatedly drawn attention to the deplorable state of the management of road safety within the nation. The Court has, over the years, acknowledged the increasing vulnerability of pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorised road users and demanded systemic reform in the regulative and infrastructure framework that controls Indian roads. 

On 7 October 2025, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan handed down a significant order calling upon all States and Union Territories to make rules under Section 138(1A) and Section 210D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in six months. These provisions grant the State Governments the powers to control pedestrian and non-motorised traffic and set standards for road design, construction, and maintenance for roads other than national highways. 

Facts of the Case

The writ petition was submitted in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, an orthopedic specialist and road safety activist, on the issues of increasing road accidents, absence of pedestrian facilities, and inadequate enforcement of traffic standards. It issued interim directives during the years such as the formation of Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (2014), enforcement of seat belts and helmets, and acknowledgment of pedestrian rights in accordance with Article 21. In May 2025, it held that the right to safe footpaths is an aspect of the right to life. In spite of these efforts, numerous States did not draft rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210D of the Motor Vehicles Act, which resulted in a regulatory void. The current order was issued to bridge this void and augment accountability. 

Issues

The core questions before the Court involved the legal duties of States and Union Territories in making rules under the Motor Vehicles Act to provide for pedestrian safety. The first issue raised was whether States and UTs are legally bound to enact rules under Section 138(1A) to regulate movement of pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles on public roads. The second issue was whether the absence of rules under Section 210D is compromising road safety standards, particularly for other than national highways which account for the lion’s share of accidents. The other issue was whether non-provision of pedestrian-friendly facilities amounts to infringement of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The Court was also required to examine whether the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines for pedestrian facilities could be considered as binding standards during the rule-making process. Last but not least, there was a question of what particular guidelines were required in order to facilitate effective and uniform enforcement of these duties to all States and Union Territories.  

Analysis

The directions of the Supreme Court must be viewed against the broader background of constitutional principles, statutory mandates, and technical standards governing road safety. 

From a constitutional standpoint, the Court has consistently expanded the meaning of Article 21 to include the right to a safe environment, which encompasses the right to use footpaths and public roads without unreasonable risk. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court recognised the importance of footpaths in connection with livelihood and mobility. More recently, the Court has specifically acknowledged that pedestrians and persons with disabilities cannot be deprived of safe access to roads.  

Statutorily, the Motor Vehicles Act establishes a dual system of responsibility between the State and Central Governments. Section 210C provides for the Centre making general standards, which has already been done with the 2020 Rules. Nevertheless, Sections 138(1A) and 210D exclusively confer rule-making power on States relating to pedestrian access, non-motorised vehicles, and road design specifications for non-national highways. The intervention of the Court was required because a number of States did not avail themselves of these powers, leaving a gap in enforcement at the local level. By making rule-making obligatory within six months, the Court has made these provisions non-discretionary but obligatory statutory obligations. 

The Court’s drawing on technical guidelines promulgated by the Indian Roads Congress bring law and engineering together. The IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities of June 2022 are a detailed set of instructions on minimum footpath width, tactile paving for the visually disabled, zebra crossings, and traffic-calming devices. While technically sound, these were not enforceable guidelines. The Court’s instruction for their use within State rule-framework is what effectively makes them binding benchmarks rather than advisory. 

At the policy level, the Court also referred to the routine problems of wrong-lane driving, unsafe overtaking, non-use of helmets, and abuse of LED lights and sirens. Not only do these put motorists in danger, but they also disproportionately impact pedestrians, who are the most vulnerable users of the road. The Court noted a few particular problems in Delhi, especially near the High Court complex, where dangerous pedestrian crossings were present. Through issuing comprehensive guidelines, the Court reasserted that road safety is not only a question of personal behavior but of institutional design of infrastructure and regulations. 

Lastly, the Court’s remarks regarding implementation issues are instructive. Justice Pardiwala has noted that though the directions are elaborate, whether or not States and local authorities honestly carry them out would decide their ultimate efficacy. It has been observed in the past that even progressive judicial decrees tend to get watered down at the implementation stage. Therefore, the Court’s insistence on statutory rule-making, as opposed to plain administrative circulars, is a step in the direction of binding accountability. 

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its October 7, 2025, order asked all States and Union Territories to prepare and notify rules under Section 138(1A) and Section 210D of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months. The Bench clarified that rules would need to encompass regulation of pedestrians and non-motorised vehicles on public roads, as well as technical specifications for road design and maintenance. 

The Court specifically mentioned the IRC Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities (2022) and held that States are required to have them in mind as minimum standards while formulating their rules. The order also reiterated previous instructions regarding the use of helmets, discouraging driving in the wrong direction, banning unauthorized hooters and sirens, and suitable regulation of high-beam white LED headlights leading to road glare. 

Importantly, the Court reiterated pedestrian safety as a right protected under the Constitution by Article 21. By making a link between statutory norms and constitutional rights, the Court signalled that failure to adhere to these guidelines may attract liability under Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act, imposing penalties for failure to comply with road design and maintenance guidelines. In passing verdict, Justice Pardiwala had stated orally that the Court has laid down the necessary parameters, but a lot is left to the State governments’ good faith to execute these directions on the ground. 

Conclusion

Supreme Court’s directive is a key milestone in pedestrianizing pedestrian rights. By mandating States to define rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210D, it fills the regulatory gap long present. Identifying footpaths under Article 21 brings pedestrian protection into a constitutional right status, while integrating IRC Guidelines provides technical competency. Yet, problems remain with encroached footpaths, road design flaws, and lax enforcement. Unless States act within six months with political will, the directions may remain ineffective. Ultimately, the judgment reaffirms that roads are for people, not just vehicles.