Rajasthan High Court: In a suo moto Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) regarding recurring loss of human lives on the roads of Rajasthan, the Division Bench of Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Anuroop Singhi, JJ., observed that such incidents were avoidable with due diligence and proper institutional response and regulation and hence, sought response from Centre and State on improvement of road and public safety matters.
The Court noted series of tragic accidents reported in leading daily newspapers like, Rajasthan Patrika, Dainik Bhaskar and Dainik Navjyot and stated that within a short span, numerous fatal road accidents had occurred across the State, resulting in nearly one hundred lives in last two weeks.
Considering reports from newspapers, the Court stated that it could not remain a passive spectator when such incidents avoidable with due diligence and proper regulation continued to erode the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court opined that “Death is inevitable, but the misery caused by untimely death is not only an irreparable loss to the family but also a direct diminution of the nation’s collective strength. The growing insensitivity of certain segments of society towards such tragic incidents appears to have permeated even into the functioning of regulatory authorities, who are expected to remain vigilant and conscious of these grave issues.”
The Court specified that a PIL might not be the only final solution to the said issue, but the nation should think and ponder over the loss of untimely lives, which is causing serious damage to the fabric of society and strength of the nation.
The Court emphasized the urgent need for the State of Rajasthan to activate and strengthen the regulatory framework so that effective measures could be undertaken to mitigate the recurring loss of life and suffering. The Court stated that Article 21 of the Constitution cast a corresponding duty upon the State to proactively safeguard the right to life sanctified under it, especially in situations where regulatory mechanisms have failed to respond with the requisite promptitude. The Court stated that “It is of grave concern that, while the nation places immense value on its human resource, widespread apathy and negligence among citizens regarding public and road safety continue to magnify societal anguish.”
The Court directed the Centre, Medical and Health Department and Revenue Department, Public Works Department and Local Bodies, Home and Transport Department and National Highways Authority of India to file their responses detailing the steps taken for better regulation and mechanisms to reduce the pain and misery caused by untimely deaths due to the lack of stringent measures. The Court further directed the Amicus curies to file a common statement, along with concrete suggestions, indicating the steps that could be initiated for strengthening the regulatory framework relating to road and public safety.
The Court listed the matter on 13-11-2925 and directed the Centre and State to also file their response on improvement of road and public safety matters.
[Suo moto in Re in the matter of tackling the issue of ‘Road and Public Safety’, CW No. 21674 of 2025, decided on 4-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Respondent: Rajesh Panwar, AAG with Ayush Gehlot, N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Aditi Sharma, B.L. Bhati, AAG with Deepak Chandak, Vivek Shrimali for Bharat Vyas, ASG and Vinay Kothari
Manvendra Singh Bhati, Sheetal Kumbhat, Aditi Moad, Heli Pathak and Taniya Mehta (Amicus curiaes)
Buy Constitution of India HERE
