Site icon SCC Times

Supreme Court issues elaborate guidelines on ensuring Pedestrian Safety; Directs conduct of audit to identify deficiencies

Pedestrian Safety on footpaths

Supreme Court issues elaborate guidelines on ensuring Pedestrian Safety; Directs conduct of audit to identify deficiencies

Supreme Court: While considering this petition filed by a leading orthopaedic surgeon and a public-spirited citizen raising issues concerning road safety, the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., issued Guidelines as an interim measure on the following 5 important aspects, expressing hope that if complied with, the Guidelines would help in reduction of road accidents and fatalities:

I. Safety of pedestrians, i.e., pavements and pedestrian crossings:

  • The road owning agencies in 50 cities [as mentioned in the Report on Road Accidents, 2023] and the NHAI were directed to start audit of existing footpaths. They shall begin with those stretches which are more crowded. While doing the audit, the authorities shall also prioritize those areas, at least 15-20 such spots, where there have been pedestrian injuries/ deaths in the last 2-3 years. The said audit inter alia ought to identify the deficiencies in the existing footpaths, including the width, height, surface of the said footpaths, decide the remedial measures, including repair and road engineering improvement of the facilities, and fix a timeline for addressing the deficiencies.

  • Existing pedestrian crossings must be carefully audited to ensure that they are compliant with the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines to the extent possible. The audit may begin with crowded intersections and thereafter other pedestrian crossings can be taken up. The deficiencies and the shortcomings in the said pedestrian crossings should be identified and remedial time bound measures be undertaken.

  • Authorities shall undertake a structured assessment of footpath and pedestrian zone encroachments, identifying chronic hotspots. They may consider the phased deployment of automated, camera-based monitoring systems, the use of physical deterrents such as bollards and guardrails, and regular clearance drives supported by GIS mapping and photographic records, to ensure continuous protection of pedestrian spaces.

  • The Court took note that pedestrian subways and foot overbridges (FOBs) are often unsafe, poorly maintained, or inaccessible. Inadequate lighting, absence of CCTV surveillance, lack of panic alert systems, and failure to comply with the MOHUA Harmonised Guidelines (2021) and IRC:103-2012 contribute to both the perception and reality of insecurity for users, particularly women, children, and elderly persons. Therefore, the Court directed the that audit of existing pedestrian crossings should additionally focus on- Requirement of traffic calming measures; Signage to indicate the existence of pedestrian crossing, with high-visibility zebra markings which may be supplemented with reflective materials; Illumination of pedestrian crossings during night-time; Road dividers should be placed in a manner to prevent pedestrians from crossing the road at any other place; Upgradation of pedestrian subways and FOBs including improved LED lighting, CCTV surveillance linked to command centres, clearly demarcated entry and exit points, panic buttons connected to local police stations, and enforceable operation and maintenance standards through contracts.

  • Authorities shall review existing pedestrian infrastructure for compliance with MOHUA and IRC standards, prioritising high footfall and accident-prone areas for retrofitting. The establishment of dedicated Accessibility and Pedestrian Cells may be considered to coordinate implementation, monitoring, and grievance redress mechanisms. In school zones and other vulnerable corridors, authorities shall systematically identify high-risk stretches using accident data, and implement context specific measures such as raised crossings, zebra markings, traffic calming features, and deployment of trained crossing guards.

  • The Court directed the road owning agencies in the 50 cities mentioned in the Report on Road Accidents, 2023 and the NHAI to draw up an action plan and start phase-wise survey to assess the requirement of additional pedestrian crossing facilities. NHAI can also take up those portions of National Highways which pass through cities and villages where they may be a need for more pedestrian crossings. Thus, the Court further directed that first priority be given to the road crossing at the Delhi High Court and the National Zoological Garden on the Mathura Road.

  • The authorities concerned can also refer to a guide-book by SaveLife Foundation, namely, “Guide to Redesign High Fatality Zones” wherein an addendum is the “Guide for the Implementation of Intersection Design Standards for Pedestrian Safety” that collates various IRC guidelines and provides both short-term and long-term solutions for recurring safety issues.

  • Authorities shall examine pedestrian infrastructure at public transport nodes, including bus terminals, metro and railway stations, for conformity with IRC standards. Interventions such as shaded holding areas, tactile paving, and conflict-point redesign may be considered, supported by joint audits between transport and municipal agencies.

  • With respect to pedestrian crossings, authorities may assess busy intersections for the feasibility of installing signalised crossings with pedestrian actuated signals, audible cues, and improved signage. Awareness campaigns may be conducted to reinforce pedestrian priority, and integration of pedestrian rights into driver training and licence renewal may be explored.

  • State transport departments, municipal authorities, NHAI, and traffic police shall strengthen implementation and monitoring of pedestrian safety measures. Section 198-A of the MV Act, 1988 shall be invoked to hold officials and contractors personally liable in cases of pedestrian deaths due to infrastructural or design failures. Authorities shall reinforce earlier judicial directions regarding helmet enforcement, pedestrian audits, legislative gaps, and grievance redressal, ensuring continuity, compliance, and accountability. Pedestrian safety reviews should be systematically incorporated into existing road safety monitoring frameworks to identify lapses and enforce timely remedial action.

  • Emphasising that it is very important that a simple and effective grievance redressal mechanism is put in place by PWD Department, Municipal Authorities and NHAI, the Court directed the State Governments/Municipal Authorities/NHAI to create an online grievance redressal mechanism regarding footpaths which would include complaints of encroachments on footpaths, maintenance of footpaths and also suggestions for pedestrian crossing. The grievance redressal system must incorporate a review mechanism by higher authorities, to be invoked in cases where the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution provided.

  • The District Road Safety Committees (DRSCs), constituted under Section 215(3) of the MV Act should mandatorily address pedestrian safety issues in their monthly meetings.

II. Directions relating to wearing of helmets:

  • All the State Governments, UTs and the NHAI to strictly implement the provisions of law relating to wearing helmets by two-wheeler drivers and passengers using two wheelers. Strict enforcement of these rules should be ensured inter alia through e-enforcement mechanism i.e. cameras installed at various places. The mechanism available for enforcement of the aforesaid violation shall be brought to the notice of the Court. The number of persons penalised and the amounts recovered by challans and the licenses suspended shall also be informed to the Court.

III. Direction on Unlawful and Wrongful Lane Driving:

  • State transport departments, traffic police authorities, and urban local bodies shall take measures to enforce lane discipline by addressing unlawful or wrong-lane driving, including the use of automated cameras, graduated fines, coloured and textured lane markings (e.g., for bus and cycle lanes), dynamic lighting, rumble strips and tyre killers at critical conflict points. The development and publication of real-time dashboards on lane violations may also be explored to build public awareness, enhance compliance and improve overall road safety.

IV. Directions on White LED Dazzling Lights, Red—Blue Strobe Lights, and Unauthorized Hooters:

  • The Court directed Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH), State Transport Departments, and traffic police authorities to prescribe maximum permissible luminance and beam angles for vehicle headlights and ensure compliance through checks during PUC testing and vehicle fitness certification, while conducting targeted drives to penalize non-compliant or modified headlights.

  • A complete ban on unauthorized red—blue strobe flashing lights and illegal hooters shall be enforced through seizure, market crackdowns, and penalties. Simultaneously, nationwide public awareness campaigns by MoRTH, state transport departments, and traffic police shall be conducted to sensitize drivers and pedestrians about the hazards posed by dazzling headlights, unauthorized strobe lights, and illegal hooters, thereby enhancing overall road safety.

V. Regarding Framing of rules by the State Governments:

  • The Court directed all the States and UTs to formulate and notify Rules under Section 138(1A) of the MV Act within a period of six months, if not already framed, for the purposes of regulating the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways.

  • The Court directed all the States and UTs to formulate and notify Rules under Section 210-D of the MV Act within a period of six months, if not already framed, for design, construction and maintenance of standards for roads other than national highways.

Background:

The petition brought the case before the Court in 2012 under Article 32 of the Constitution highlighting the loss of life and limb caused by ever increasing number of road accidents in the country and utter callous and casual attitude of the States towards such accidents despite there being various statutory enactments and plethora of judgments/orders delivered by Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country. The petitioner pointed out the lack of strict enforcement of the safety rules on roads and strict punishment for the drivers who do not obey the road rules.

Court’s Assessment:

Perusing the issue raised by the petitioner, the Court expressed its inclination to issue certain guidelines especially in light of recent official figures released by the Government of India which show that (i) more than 35,000 pedestrians were killed in road accidents in the year 2023, (ii) more than 54,000 riders/ passengers of two wheelers had died due to non-wearing of helmets.

The Court also stated that it shall keep monitoring the compliance of the issued directions. The Court pointed out that there have been 1,72,890 deaths in road accidents in India in 2023, out of which 35,221 are pedestrian deaths, which is an increase of 7.30% from the year 2022. Thus, 20.40% of deaths on Indian roads were of pedestrians. The Court further took note of statistics related to pedestrian deaths and emphasised that it is of urgent necessity that the authorities ensure that pedestrians are able to walk safely on the streets and more importantly are able to cross the roads safely. The deaths of pedestrians may be attributed to lack of sufficient pedestrian infrastructure, namely footpaths which force the pedestrians to walk on the streets, which is unsafe as they run the risk of being hit and/or run over by vehicles. The Court further pointed out that footpaths and pedestrian infrastructure are frequently unlawfully encroached upon and misused, forcing pedestrians onto carriageways and exposing them to grave risks. Sections 201 and 210B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empower authorities to prohibit and penalise vehicular use of footpaths, pedestrian zones, illegal parking, vending, and other forms of encroachment.

The Court delved into relevant provisions of the MV Act and Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety [Second Revision] June 2022 IRC 103-2022. The Court pointed out that the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs have issued the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier Free Built Environment for Persons with Disability and Elderly Persons in 2021.

The Court pointed out that safe and encroachment free footpaths are very vital for movement of pedestrians and well-maintained footpath is a judicially recognised right. Therefore, NHAI, State Governments and Municipal authorities have a duty to ensure that footpaths are built in a proper manner and pedestrians are provided safe opportunities to cross the streets. The Court further stated that IRC guidelines which deal with pedestrian crossings, if implemented in letter and spirit, would reduce chances of pedestrian accidents.

The Court also expressed concern at the rampant use of dazzling white LED headlights, unauthorised red—blue strobe lights, and hooters that mimic emergency sirens. High-intensity headlights, including those fitted in two-wheelers, cause temporary visual disorientation and glare for oncoming drivers, as well as pedestrians. Pedestrians face momentary loss of spatial awareness, increasing the risk of being hit or tripping into roadside drains, pits, or other hazards. Drivers experience reduced reaction time, difficulty judging distances, and impaired lane discipline, particularly on narrow streets and highways, which heightens the likelihood of collisions.

The Court expressed concerns over non-implementation of the rules relating to wearing helmets and further highlighted that pedestrian safety is intrinsically linked to broader policy goals, including accident prevention, inclusive mobility, walkability, and environmental objectives. The systematic failure of lane discipline compromises the predictability of vehicle flows, undermining safe pedestrian crossings and increasing exposure to high-risk interactions.

[S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 295 OF 2012, order dated 7-10-2025]

Order by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan


Advocates who appeared in this case:

Amicus: Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Krishna Kumar, AOR Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjit Bannerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mrs. Madhulika Upadhyay AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Sabrish Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv. Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. B.K. Satija, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya AOR Ms. Prerna Mehta, AOR Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, AOR Mr. Sanjay Jain AOR Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Haraprasad Sahu, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Ms. Ankita M Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR Mr. Robin Singh, Adv. Mr. Kapil Balwani, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar – I, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Divya Mishra, Adv Mr. Shaurya Vardhan Singh, Adv. Ms. Niharika Rai, Adv. Mr. Ashish K Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.I., Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Dutta Shrimali, Adv. Mr. M. P. Vinod, AOR Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sidhant Sahay, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapur, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR Mr. Rajesh Maurya, Adv. Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta Standing Counsel, Adv. Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv. Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Mr. Sharanya Sinha, Adv. Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Ms. Ritika Rao, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kishore, AOR Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, AOR Mrs. Ranjita Sahu, Adv. Mr. Manaj Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swati Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv. Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Aman Gautam, Adv. Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Ms. Sunita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Mr. Akshay Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Tanya Shrotriya, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Ms. Juhi Bhargava, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Saurabh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

Exit mobile version