In an effort to enhance road safety and the enforcement of traffic laws across India, the Supreme Court on Monday directed 23 states and seven union territories to file reports on their compliance with recent legal provisions and rules concerning electronic monitoring and road safety measures. The directive comes as part of the court’s ongoing monitoring of nationwide road safety initiatives.
Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court highlighted that only six states—West Bengal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala—and the union territory of Delhi had submitted their compliance reports. These reports are crucial in assessing the implementation of Section 136A of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 167A of the Motor Vehicles Rules, both aimed at leveraging technology to curb traffic violations such as speeding.
The bench has scheduled March 25 as the date to review the compliance of these states and UTs, while the remaining regions are expected to submit their reports promptly. These documents will be reviewed by the Supreme Court committee on road safety, which will then provide feedback and recommendations to assist the Centre in developing standard operating procedures for electronic monitoring and road safety enforcement.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as amicus curiae, reported to the bench that the necessary guidance could be drawn from the reports of the six compliant states. This interaction is part of a broader dialogue on how best to implement these technologies, which include speed cameras, CCTV, speed guns, body-worn cameras, and automatic number plate recognition systems, particularly on national and state highways and in major urban areas.
Introduced in 2021, Section 136A emphasizes the adoption of advanced monitoring technologies to ensure better traffic management and to facilitate the efficient prosecution of traffic law violators. Rule 167A complements this by detailing the regulatory framework necessary for the effective implementation of these road safety measures.
The Supreme Court has reiterated that these technological tools are intended solely for enforcing traffic laws and must not be used for any surveillance activities unrelated to traffic violations. The installation of electronic enforcement devices is mandated in high-risk corridors and major junctions, especially in cities with populations exceeding one million.
