The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to issue fresh directives mandating seat belt usage, ruling that existing statutory regulations are already sufficient and that ensuring vehicular compliance remains the responsibility of law enforcement bodies.
Disposing of a petition that sought judicial intervention to make seat belts compulsory across all passenger vehicles, a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana stated that the matter centers on field execution rather than an absence of legislation. The court observed that public non-compliance and the failure of enforcement agencies to prosecute violators are fundamentally law-and-order concerns rather than judicial omissions.
Existing Statutory Framework
In its observations, the bench cited Rule 138(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, pointing out that statutory provisions already require drivers, front-seat occupants, and passengers in front-facing rear seats to wear seat belts while a vehicle is in motion.
Addressing the petitioner, the judges noted that the legal position remains unambiguous, remarking that the underlying hurdle is securing adherence from every motorist nationwide. The bench emphasized that supervisory and regulatory functions belong to competent administrative and police authorities tasked with upholding traffic statutes.
Petitioner Cites Aftermarket Modifications and Fatalities
The petition had urged judicial directions on grounds that strict adherence to safety restraints could significantly decrease road accident fatalities and severe injuries across the country. Counsel representing the petitioner argued that weak statutory enforcement and general public indifference continue to cause preventable roadway casualties.
The counsel also drew attention to widespread vehicular modifications, pointing out that aesthetic alterations—such as custom seat covers—often render factory-installed seat belts dysfunctional or inaccessible to occupants.
Submission of Recommendations
While refusing to issue guidelines, the top court granted the petitioner liberty to submit the petition alongside actionable suggestions directly to the competent administrative authority for consideration.
